Campus security rationale offends

The pillorying of Connor Neurauter in the Herald articles was beginning to gnaw on my sense of fairness. I knew from having practised criminal law in Calgary for 35 years that there was more to the facts than what was reported.

From my understanding, as well as imposing a 90-day jail sentence, the offender was placed on probation for two years and the sex offenders registry was mandatory. The charge and the low sentence strongly suggest a lack of prior record and facts that place the offender at the low end of the blameworthiness continuum (and certainly exclude any suggestion of de facto non-consent).

It makes me wonder whether the 60,000 petition signatories were provided with any real facts and background of the offender.

The marchers behind the banner of security on campus made it clear their intentions were not punitive and the later decision by the University of Calgary to ban Mr. Neurauter from campus was not, and I repeat, not the result of public pressure.

It is now being suggested that we need better screening of applicants to our universities and colleges. The next logical step is to deny sex offender applicants from entry. But what about the domestic offenders and those convicted of public indecency? Let’s not forget the thieves. Isn’t theft also a violation of the security of the person?

I also read about an application for “dangerous offender” status being made for a serial rapist. This offender must be separated from society for as long as the law allows. Mr. Neurauter, on the other hand, was of previous good character. His guilty plea and ensuing conviction will follow him forever. To suggest the targeting of this young man was done in the name of campus security is offensive.

The call for greater screening of applicant students is even more alarming. Robert Batting, Calgary