Time served Law imposes unfair punishment on sex criminals after prison sentence There is a knock on the door, which Ted goes to and opens. There stands a normal-looking man in jqans, a T-sfiirf and a denim jacket. “Hi,” says the man at the door. “My name is James, and I’ve just moved in next door. I’m required by law to tell you that I served a six-year prison sentence for various §ex crimes. I’ve been rehabilitated now, 'though, and I’m looking forward to kving next to you. Have a good afternoon, neigh bor!” Luckily, this scene doesn’t have to happen in Nebraska. But in other states across the country, ex-convicts are being required to go door-to-door to inform neighbors about their prison sentences. The federal mandate, known as Megan’s Law, is in effect in every state in some form. After sex offenders are released from prison, they are evaluated on how high a threat they are. If they fall into a high-risk category, they are forced into the notification program. In some states, the list is at a police station where citizens are forced to go get the information. In others, the ex-convict is forced to go door-to-door and notify both the neighborhood as well as all schools and day cares in the area. Nebraska’slaw is less malicious than those of many other states - the list is available on die Web for anyone concerned. If a citizen is concerned about the Level HI (high-risk) offend ers in the Lincoln area, they have to go look on the Web, although churches, schools and day cares are notified of Level D (medium-ride) and Level HI offenders in the area. Nebraska’s law generally relies on die media to do its dirty work, which apparently we did virtually unques tioningly. In a cover story on Friday, the Daily Nebraskan informed some ex-convicts’ neighbors of their new neighbor’s presence on the sex offend- * er list, a move with which I whole heartedly disagree. One neighbor of each of the three • ex-convicts was interviewed for die story, most of them having been, until that moment, unaware of their neigh bor’s history. Some of the neighbors were accepting of their neighbor’s past; one wasn’t Beyond this, we pub lished all three of the ex-convicts’ names, as well as the names of their neighbors. Not only do the neighbors now know who these people are; thou sands of people who read the Daily Nebraskan know their identities as well. In reporting on the law, I believe this newspaper showed an incredible lack of news judgment. According to the news desk, very little discussion went on about whether or not we should have printed the names. The editors stand behind their decision. Instead of saying, “We’re not going to print these names,” we did. It was our call - no law requires us to print the names - and instead of using our voice to protest the law, we bought into it hook, line and sinker. Instead of speaking out against a law that encour ages citizens to take the law into their own hands, we simply printed the names and gave the matter little thought. Journalists have an obligation as the source of information of a commu nity to make decisions on when not to run information. There are times when journalists should simply say “No.” But we didn’t. And it was given hardly more than a moment’s consideration. And, even more than just printing the names, we contacted the neighbors to fmd out what they thought about it, which had the practical effect of informing them of their ex-convict neighbors. As a result of our efforts, those three neighbors will inform oth ers almost definitely. Perhaps the ex-convicts will be harassed and perhaps not. But instead of just a few concerned individuals knowing the past of their neighbors, thousands more now know. I can offer only my most sincere apologies to these ex-convicts for what fhrther harm we may have caused them. You should notice that I have referred to these people as ex-convicts often, because that’s what they are - former convicts. These people have served their time and been released from prison. I am sure some people are filming, thinking that I am insensitive to the SO SO percent recidivism rate of these offenders, but I assure you, I am not. My solution is very simple: If crimi nals are not rehabilitated, then they should not be let out of jail. Some may claim the idea of imprisoning these people is worse that letting them out under the microscope of the public. But which is worse - the imprisonment of someone for twenty years or the public lynching of a non threatening person? I’ll give you a hint - you can ask both people and only one can give you an answer. The other’s dead. Megan’s Law was a knee-jerk reaction to a problem. Rather than address the failings of our legal sys tem, the government employed a quick-fix remedy, and people’s rights were trampled on. Is it really fair to prisoners who have served their time and have been released to endure harassment every minute of every day, to be haunted by their mistakes until their lives become a living hell, regardless of whether they will ever commit another crime? If you said yes, what kind of per son are you? In your thirst to see what you think is justice served, you have overlooked the rights of every citizen to a fair trial and to avoid cruel and unusual punishment. When Megan’s law was passed, one of its supporters said: “You can take your child by the hand, point that person out and say, “This man hurts children.’” Tell me again the law is for justice, not vengeance, and I somehow don’t think you’ll be able to convince me. Tell me that you need it to feel safe. But which is more important - your safety or someone else’s rights. Cliff Hicks is a senior news-editorial and English major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist 48 hours in Hollywood (OK, 41. Sort of.) In the sunny City of Angels, rails, Retardo and whipped cream rule the day WESTWOOD, Calif -You want an idea of how Los Angeles works? Five blocks from the UCLA cam pus is an arcade. Outside it, a couple of cars: Mercedes, Lexus, Audi. Leather interiors. All owned by 16 year-olds. The money standards are different. Car standards, different Beauty stan dards, different. L.A. is just like you, all right, just more full of everything. * * * Press junkets for movies; produc tion companies do them all die time. And nearly everyone there is from a college, like me, getting put up in a hotel, like me, getting fed and watered, like me, getting thousands of dollars spent on them, like me. All for a new teen comedy called “Road Trip.” The money Dreamworks, the film’s production compa ny, spent on us is likely near $100,000. * * * It’s a two-day deal: in and out, up and down. None of us college folk are v f\ pros at this; nei ther are the people who are running it they’re our age, too. Lackeys on die ground floor of the film industry. “Did you like the movie? Did you like the , music? How’s the party? Think it’s cool? Die DJs-no I . one is out mere danc ing, so at the end of the night, will you go tell him he’s doing a great job? Because he really is, and I just want people to appre ciate all die work he’s doing and (« Breathe, sister. * * * She’s been to L.A. so many times - like vacations, you know - but she’s a tourist nonetheless, holding out her voucher tike she’s at Grand Central. She’s BU, you know - Boston University - and she’s got her cell, her glasses, her four outfits, her formal dress (just in case), her smudged lip stick, her crusted mascara that makes her look like she’s crying. Brianne has interviews Monday in New York, you know, with MTV you know, and she does these movie things all the time, and she has to call her roomie Emily at BU and tell her that Some guy named Retard© is downstairs an