Disclosures should be on need to know basis

Forcing Student Government Association candidates to disclose their criminal record when running for office would be an unnecessary obligation.

When the crime is related to specific duties of the job, such as the embezzling record of someone running for treasurer, it would be reasonable to require candidates to disclose their criminal record.

However, routinely forcing candidates to expose select details of their past, unjustly re-convicts them for a crime for which they have already paid the penalty.

For one, blanket disclosures serve only to label ex-convicts. Felony convictions from years or decades ago do not necessarily reflect the character of the person now.

Secondly, such disclosures will not have all the details others should have to make a decision about that person. A brief statement of criminal offenses does not reflect the facts of the case, which could be quite muddy, and which could be based on a technicality.

Thirdly, disclosures could give us a false sense of security, thinking we know all there is to know about past criminals, when in reality there are other people whom we need to be careful about.

Fourth, felonies do not just include rape and murder. Laws have been expanded to label more offenses as felonies. Simple drug possessions and DUIs that were previously misdemeanors are now felonies in states like Texas.

In fact, you could say I’ve committed a few felonies in my past. In my earlier days, I have driven under the influence of alcohol and drugs. I didn’t do it repeatedly and I was never caught and convicted, but they are still felonies.

Fifth, laws in different states classify crimes differently. A felony in one state could be a misdemeanor in another.

I know people who could technically be labeled as sex offenders in some states, including at least one person who has been married to his “victim” for years.

Sixth, there is no distinction made between the person who made a mistake early in life and a repeat offender.

Finally, wrongful convictions might also be an issue, and more likely if it was a single conviction. They do exist, and with political expediency of prosecuting attorneys, getting a conviction, some people may be forced into plea bargains.

Though such a regulation could be useful, there are just too many exceptions that should be considered.

Furthermore, considering the limited power and weight of responsibility of the SGA, required disclosure does nothing to protect students or the SGA, and can be destructive to potential candidates.

Our penal system exists in part to rehabilitate people. If we want criminals to be rehabilitated, we should not insist that they be marked for life.

The issue is not about knowing the candidates. Of course we should know, but it should be up to the candidates themselves, their opponents and the press to keep us informed about what they believe is important.

When government regulations, at whatever level, make blanket decisions about what people should be told, we have started to lose one of our most valuable freedoms, freedom of the speech and of the press. And when we look for government to make that decision we have abandoned the democratic principles on which our freedom is based.