Deseret News | Reader comments: Sex registry under fire

Reader comments
Sex registry under fire

Page:
1
2
Next >

Some Shouldn't | 1:47 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

While I certainly agree that offenders who have committed serious sex crimes, especially against children, should be on the registry, there are also people on there who did not do anything wrong at all. Because of the impossibility of proving one's innocence when there is no evidence, and no witnesses, simply a case of a child's word against a grandfather's, some people are forced into the difficult position of accepting a 3rd degree plea bargain, rather than risking 20 years in prison if convicted on a 1st degree charge, even though he is not guilty. This happened to my husband. He did not commit any crime, but had to serve 6 months in jail, is on probation for 5 years, has to pay for expensive, unneeded counseling for years, and is on the Registry for many years. Our entire lives have changed because of this. I don't know the solution to determining who should or should not be registered. I only know my husband does not need to be on it, but he has to be, and the whole experience has basically ruined our lives. Thankfully, an LDS Church court found him innocent and wrongfully accused. We're grateful for that.

Fan of Balance | 2:49 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I agree that the people found guilty of urinating on the side of the road, but without sexual aggravation, should not be on the sex offender registry. I also agree that an 18 year old who is found guilty of having consensual sex with a 17 year should not be on the registry. I do not understand why the legislature - or whoever controls the keeping of the sex offender registry - would allow the scarlet letter to be applied to those kinds of offenders. Those people are paying a price they should not have to pay, and it isnï¿½t fair.

Concerns About Journalistic Presentation:
The writer of this article wrote: ï¿½Greiner and Whinham want a registry to list the Wingets of the world.ï¿½ I wish the writer would have been a bit more careful, and written ï¿½the Sean Wingets of the worldï¿½ and not just ï¿½the Wingets of the world.ï¿½ I wish journalists would be more sensitive. And no, I am not a Winget, but I still think a little more care should be used to avoid the appearance of lumping all Wingets into the same category. Nobody wants their family named used as synonymous with sexual deviance.

Fan of Balance | 2:51 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

And another thing...

MORE Concerns About Journalistic Presentation:
The writer of this article also wrote ï¿½Then-deputy Weber County Attorney Gary Heward said about the young Winget, ï¿½He's dangerous, and he'll always be dangerous.ï¿½ï¿½

I do not dispute that the statement was made. But I do take issue with the writerï¿½s attempt to offer a medical-psychological prognosis on Sean Winget by quoting an attorneyï¿½s rhetoric from thirteen years ago. I hope nobody implies a medical-pschological prognosis on me by using an attorney's words. Remember...we actually require our attorneys to be one-sided, one for each side of an issue. I donï¿½t think the writerï¿½s use of the attorney quote was very intellectually honest, or respectful of reader intelligence.

Comments continue below

Fan of Balance | 2:56 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

That said, the writer otherwise did a public service with the article. The trick is to do it in a balanced way. The lack of balance of this article is, unfortunately, probably attributable as much to the profession as to the writer. It would be difficult for anybody to be balanced on a deadline. The writers have to re-read their pieces several times from many different angles, and there simply isn't much time for articles to incubate.

Therefore, I sympathize with the writer, but I sympathize more with the Wingets...the non-Sean-Wingets of the world, i.e. all of them but Sean Winget. And if Sean Winget is really permanently bad for society, let's get somebody other than a prosecuting attorney who is paid to advocate one side, to quote for a statement on Sean Winget's long term prognosis.

I'm not perfect at my job either, and I suspect the writer of this article is above average in his profession. I still stand behind my points.

rvalens2 | 6:26 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Once they serve their time and probation, the State should remove their names from the registry. To forever penalize someone for a crime they have committed smacks to me of "cruel and unusual punishment." The public is rarely given the same accessability to the names, mug shots and addresses of other criminals. That being said, I do not condone what these people have done and do sympathize with their victims.

They are never "cured" | 6:55 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

"Ford noted not all on the registry are pedophiles and that many on the list are adults who committed sex crimes, such as rape, against other adults."

Probably true, but the majority of those on the registry in my neighborhood are pedophiles.

Very concerned | 7:12 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

The registry is a tool for parents to protect their children. Ten years on the registry for those that have committed lesser sexual abuse crimes is not "cruel and unusual". Of concern to me are juvenile sex offenders (yes they are out there and you don't know who they are) who don't have to be on any registry. They can also fall into the predator category. They can be neighbor children, at school, and other places where your children congregate and unlike adults whom we can identify thanks to the registry; juvenile sex offenders roam around unknown to most of us.

Clare | 7:36 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

It is better to err on the side of caution than take a chance one of these people will commit another crime. They chose what they did. They deserve the consequences. Pedophiles are incurable. Sex offenders should be on the list regardless of their age. I have absolutely no sympathy.

mbw | 8:42 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I know for a fact that only about 10% of the people listed on that sex offender registry are malicious predators that are a real danger to the community - yet all of the people listed there are sadly lumped into that group in general societies view (thanks Clare for showing us that).

What I want to know is why there isn't a murder registry out there... or a major drug dealer registry. Those are the people I want to be aware of. They are 100 times more dangerous than the majority of the people on the registry. Remove, or give 3-5 year terms rather than 10years to life on those listed on the registry for minor offences and use the money saved to track these other miscreants.

Very Concerned | 9:08 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

"I know for a fact" is a completely false statement when dealing with sex offenders that only "10%" are dangerous predators. Unless you are clairvoyant or better, you can't know. Have you heard of escalating behaviors. Maybe somebody starts out with lewdness with a child and if not stopped (like arrested), the behavior can escalate to other activities. Another thing, you don't know what the original charges were and then pled down. Those with a lifetime registration requirement have certainly earned and we deserve to know who they are.

Frank | 9:24 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

To Clare...I think you have a self-righteous attitude with your "vast" knowledge and empathy for victims, offenders, and the criminal system. Your shallow comments reflect overall compassion, fair play and empathy. I would hope you and your family never have an offender that needs to be on the registry...regardless of the seriousness of the offense.

Naive | 9:29 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

The scariest aspect of some of the comments here, is the false sense of security that comes with any punishment (however severe it may be) of known perpetrators. Somehow putting away any number of individuals for life is supposed to make you feel safer? Why not take responsibility into your own hands and learn how to teach your loved ones safety and watching over them yourselves? Go ahead and let our inept government/law enforcement take charge and protect your young ones. Any extreme amount of punishment of current criminals is in anyway healing our society. It only puts away a few. Hacking at the leaves of evil, we are missing the root by a long shot.

Should those who commit sexual crimes be punished? Absolutely. Should it be level-headed and reasonable, with the idea that restitution is possible and that the fear of punishment does very little to prevent crimes from happening in our already sex-obsessed society? Yes.

That being said, I think the pendulum is finally beginning to swing the other way, and that the extreme paranoia about sex crimes that's existed the last couple decades is starting to taper off. People CAN change. Deal with it.

The Man | 10:39 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Only an idiot would assume that he meant all Wingets. Have you people ever read a newspaper before? They always do a first reference by first and last name, and all subsequent references by last name only. To take one sentence out of this story and twist so you can make a snarky remark about the writer's ability is childish.

Re: The Man | 10:49 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Excuse me, but... "snarky remark?" Look who's talking! Don't you sound intelligent?!?!?!

Been there | 10:50 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

A close member of my family was on the list until recently. That's 10 years of recrimination and bigotry from neighbors for what he admits was a really stupid decision to be (non-sexually) involved with a teen girl. Sex doesn't have to be in the equation for the AG's office - another conviction looks good on their records.
There are many problems involved with this subject. Not everyone on the list is a pedophile - some are scary, but the list lumps everyone together.

The real fact (based on surveys by the Federal DOJ) is that people who have been convicted are only really of great concern in their first year or two after release to the community - after all, a sexual deviant has *^%* little control. After 2 years the prospects of re-offense drops to about 30%. After 4 years it's in the single digits.
Still, after 10 years on the list (probability now basically 0) the recrimination and bigotry continue.

Finally, the nails in the coffin, is that the legislature has not made it impossible to have your record (for gutter peeing or whatever) ever expunged.

That is cruel and unusual punishment. No forgivness in Utah!

if you got connections | 11:49 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

there have been people in positions of trust let go and given a slap on the hand while others because of socio-eco status are hung out to dry, i would research certain jurisdictions throughout the state as there may be pattern.

Attorney | 11:56 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Some observations from an attorney in Salt Lake who practices in this area of the law. 1) being on a registry will NOT stop an offender with a problem from committing the offense again. . . and no matter how you tell your child not to "go around" that house, or not to "talk" to that person, it will do little to dissuade a predator from coming after your child if the predator has targeted them. 2) The registry is NOT designed to alert parents of "dangerous dogs" in thier community, it is designed to keep offenders from serving in schools, programs, leagues,etc.... where children are present, assuming that the operators of those entites do appropriate background checks about volunteers. 3) I imagine that within ten years, half of the population of Utah would be on the list - according to the technical requirements of statutes on the books - if all activity was reported and prosecuted, because the laws don't differentiate between sexual contact by caregivers vs. strangers, adult to adult, kid to kid etc...

L@circleofheartsutah.org | 11:58 a.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I will say that yes there are people who are on the registry that should not be like there are those who are convicted for crimes that they did not commit. However let's think from the victims point of view who has a "scarlet letter" on them for life! I understand that it is difficult for one to understand that point unless you have been there and I hope that never happens. I personally would like to know who is living in my neighborhood and the registry does list the level of offense if you know how to read it. Also for the person quoting %'s of reoffense isn't any % bad? At one time I read a report that out of 600 people convicted of sexual assault only 10% re offended that is 60 people and if they only assault 2 more people that is 120 new victims although it was proven in this study that they did re offend and it was alot more than just 2 people/children. We need to stop living in a false secured bubble, We don't have to live life afraid of our own shadows but we need to be aware.

Attorney | 12:09 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

the attorneys and police involved in this process are NOT driven by a use of good judgment about what they charge, and who they charge with regard to the registry - they are completly motivated by pressure from their superiors, who have agendas in getting numbers that justify funding and promotions and PR, to get convictions against "sex offenders" regardless of whether the allegations are true or not. In fact, DCFS has a requirement to close their investigations about allegations of sexual abuse within 30 days of the allegations, and they are trained to put accused perpetrators in their "SAFE" system and make supported findings with little or NO evidence other than the accusations against them. THe entire system operates as a guilty until proven innocent system

Adults in Utah should be VERY concerned with the overzealousness of this Registry, because any baseless allegation by someone you know who wants to hurt you can ruin your life.

Tom | 12:19 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

You can know exactly who in your neighborhhod has a criminal history. It doesn't matter. If they want to get someone they will. You can have all the eyes in the world watching, but it won't matter will it? It is just a false sense of security. Sleep tight.

Instereo | 12:21 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Lists are always something to argue over. The top 10 movies of 2008 just opens things up for arguement about who is on or off the list and why. It's the same thing with the Sex Offender list. What I don't understand is why there isn't a list for people convicted of murder or for people that commit fraud or people that physically abuse spouces or children or the elderly. I'm sure there are things I've left off of the list of things there should be lists of. If we made enough lists of crimes and the people that committed them we might be able to make sure we are all on one list or another. The point is do these lists help reduce crime or do they just make us paranoid about one issue or another or point to scapegoats we can blame. I think a lot of thought needs to go into these lists we are making to protect ourselves. Personally, I'm in favor of less lists and let professionals deal with criminals instead of roked up and panicky neighbors.

Tom | 12:33 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I am much more fearful of the paranoid neighbor than someone on one of those lists.

why tom | 1:20 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

you might be on this list and you sound paranoid.

50 publuic lashes | 1:30 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

for all sex offenders!!!

84601'er | 1:47 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I live in an area code in Utah County which has the highest number of sex offenders within its boundaries-49. Out of the 49 in the 84601 area code, 42 have convictions involving children or minors. I have four offenders who live within two blocks of my house. Through church responsibilties, I know all four have convictions involving children. Two that I have had discussions with admit they are not in any kind of shape to be around children (these two admit they are child sexaholics). One that I have met with cannot admit to the problem even though he was convicted three times--twice for attempted and once for sexual molestation. All of these individuals are clean cut and act like the nicest people in the world and would normally be the type of person you would want to be your child's adopted uncle. There is a reason for their behavior toward children--they have an ulterior motive in mind--just ask the honest ones. The registry may have some flaws, but from my point of view and experience these individuals are better off under a watchful eye for their good and ours.

Re: 50 pubic lashes | 1:54 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

The offender list was placed for that very reason. Society's interpretation of the laws governing the hierarchy of the government. We can undeniably cure the vast political tailspin by incorporating that type of referenda.

To The Man From: Fan of Balance | 2:15 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

To "The Man": I did not think my remark about the writer's abilities was snarky. You probably neglected to read my third post, where I complimented his abilities and the service his article rendered. Your acerbic comment is acknowledged. I stand by my remarks. The writer could have chosen to say "the Sean Wingets of the world," but he didn't. As a society of intelligence and a high standard of living than previous decades and centuries, we can afford to be more careful, and more sensitive, than we have been in the past, your denigrating comments to the contrary.

kiokwus, WV | 2:43 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

If anyone took the time to research the registries of all the states, what do you suppose you will find? Take an in-deft study of the original offenses, what or if these were reduced via a plea, what do you suppose you would find? Like with any study, you will need to have a + or - to determine your results. Now take away all those who have convictions for minor victimless offenses, Romeo & Juliet's, vindictive charges, charges via divorce or other similar actions, false charges (with proof), what do you suppose you will find? Out of the 600,000 plus on the registries, only how many would be justified being listed? You would find the vast majority do not deserve being registered for any reason. All it takes is an accusation, evidence not needed, to be convicted. Why? When it comes to sex crimes, you're guilty until an if you can prove yourself innocent. This can happen to anyone, and life as you know it is over. Even if you prove innocence, life is over. Before making judgement, research and learn what the truth truly is. It may be you one day who finds themselves listed.

Ask a victim! | 3:12 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

maybe before we all jump on the support the offenders bandwagon we could ask their victims how they feel about the registry, I for one feel ok knowing somewhat where my rapist's are, because as a victim I have a life sentence of issues simply because I was a 10 year old in my backyard at the wrong time, I have no sympathy for them or others like them because they can't get a job or live a normal life. yes it is a list and there will be mistakes but think of the other side for awhile. And to those who commented how easy it is to convict someone of a sex related crime, it's not that easy from a survivors point of view.

really look into it | 4:25 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

If you really look into it you will find that %90+ pedophiles are incurable even with therapy. It takes a lot more work/court than people are saying to be listed. My guess is the ones complaining the loudest are on the registry themselves or have someone they are protecting on the list. I wish they could list more people with this problem. Think about ten years; not much time when you look at the lifetime of therapy and fear that the victims face. Stop protecting the offenders. Protect the innocent.

The Man | 5:16 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

To Fan of Balance ï¿½
I still think it was dumb to think that other people would assume that he meant all people with the name of Winget when his intent was clear to anyone who read the article. As for the other person, I was intending to be snarky, snide and a little rude. That was my intent. So thank you, yes I am intelligent.

To Kiokwus & the 2nd attorney | 6:03 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Thanks for your comments. My post is 1st ("Some Shouldn't"). It's nice to hear from others who have some understanding of the devastation caused by this type of accusation/conviction for someone who did not ever do anything to anyone to warrant the charge. He's a wonderful grandpa, but we can't attend grandchildren's activities, or go to their homes, without getting written permission from the probation officer and the counselor, every time. We had hoped to serve a mission together, but now we can't. We are nearing retirement age, but can't retire for many years as all our retirement savings went for legal fees, and living expenses during his incarceration, and it will cost $100+ per week for over 3 years for court-mandated "sex counseling". The police did little investigation, or they would have learned why our granddaughter chose to get her mother's attention in this way. We couldn't risk a trial because of the impossibility of proving his innocence. We certainly recognize there are many predators who should be incarcerated and on the Registry. It is very hard to be lumped together with all levels of offenders. But our life and all our plans for the future are permanently changed.

I am a victim!! | 6:30 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Unless/Until you are a victim, you have no idea what your talking about. We, the victim's, have a lifetime sentence. And many of you are worried about the offender's name being known?? What in heaven's name is happening to our society ...... I pray none of you ever have to be the victim.

curious/some shouldn't | 7:34 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

did the grand daughter take what she said back? or is it still her word against her grandfathers and everyone sided with him? if so how sad for her.

Offender | 7:35 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I am a registered sex offender of statuatory rape. You people would call me a Romeo and juliet case. I feel sorry for any victim, I am against any crimes against anybody, especially sex crimes. But I also know that these laws are messed up. I received probation, never got into trouble again. Its been 13 years. If I knew I was going to be on a registry I would have ran or killed myself. I am 32 years old and I figure my sentence will be over when im rich......or dead!

Fan of Balance | 7:46 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

To: The Man

I acknowledge your point, and I note again the point you are missing. Rude people often (but not always) fail to see the point. They make up for what they don't know, with rudness (sometimes).

You acknowledge that you intended to be snarky, snide and a little rude. You forgot to mention hypocritical. You can now have the last word. It is clear that you are the type.

The Cause | 7:57 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

In my psychology classes in college I learned that reliving an experience in your mind is exactly as powerful as reliving it in real life. Why are we focusing on keeping our pedofiles pedofiles?
Why are we not focusing on creating a separate portal on the internet for pornography? Why do we not police the media better, and stop dressing our scantily clad models as children (cheerleaders, pony tails, school girls)? Why do we spend millions of dollars on revenge and punishment when we could actually make a difference? Why can we not offer voluntary castration for the reduction of sentences? I really don't understand why all of America is so backwards.

To Curious | 7:59 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

Our granddaughter has not taken back what she said. She's 12. Her mother is my daughter, my husband's step-daughter, who has vowed to "get even" with him for years. For what? We've never known. When we married, she was living on the streets, doing drugs, etc. at age 14. He tried to help me keep her out of trouble. She got married young, had 2 children, one more out of wedlock, divorced a couple of times, and has raised her 3 girls surrounded with many problems. She's been on drugs, lived with guys, discussed her sex life openly with her kids, and allowed them to view porn. I love her and the girls dearly, and have tried to help the girls learn a better way of life. She will not have anything to do with me now. I feel bad for our granddaughter, who made up a story to get her mother's attention, with the help of her friend, and she now has to live with it until she decides otherwise. I was a victim of marital rape years ago, so I also understand the other side. There are no easy answers. Most of our 13 kids believe their dad.

jill | 8:16 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

For all of you Boneheads, look up the D.O.J. stastics befor you post your deadhead stats that you heard from the girl who does your nails.

Also to "Curious" | 8:34 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

You asked if our granddaughter has taken her accusation back. She hasn't, nor do I expect she ever will. Her mother wouldn't let her if she wanted to. That is a sad thing. The police, judge, prosecutor and jailers all believe my husband is a monster who said and did terrible things to an innocent child. For a long time the only people who believed in him was me, his parents, our friends, and most of my kids. His children didn't believe him, but have begun to come to terms with their feelings. Our attorney advised him to accept the 3rd degree plea bargain because of the difficulty proving innocence, rather than risking a trial for the 1st degree charges, possibly spending 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. He is a wonderful man, a wonderful grandpa, who loves all children--properly--and would NEVER do anything to hurt a child in any way. We were working toward being sealed in the temple. That will have to wait until his probation ends. The Church Court found him innocent and worthy to participate. Our life here is ruined, but God knows the truth, and that's what counts for us.

To Grandma and Grandpa | 9:30 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

I certainly sympathize with your situation. Children can be brainwashed to misrepresent facts this way. PBS did an extensive documentary on the subject, and how lame prosecutions often are--convicting people with no evidence and as a result of some social worker convincing the child that something happened--that didn't happen. Shame on social workers who do that for their own pleasure or gain.

I know little about courts and how these things happen, other than articles like these and PBS documentaries. What I wonder, is did your husband ever submit to a polygraph examination, and could it have made a difference? Could the child have submitted to a polygraph exam, and would that have made any difference? Why or why not?

If your husband is innocent, this is a terrible thing. I am a new grandpa, and hope nothing of the sort happens to me; I certainly won't ever do anything to instigate it. Unfortunately, as you point out, any of us could be at risk for false accusation and false prosecution. Makes us reluctant to spend time with grandchildren. What a travesty.

To the new grandpa | 11:06 p.m. Dec. 10, 2007

We were told that polygraphs wouldn't be allowed in the court. He was willing to submit to one. As part of the required counseling he has to pass 2 polygraphs, one now, and in 2 years, at our expense of course, even though it would not be admissible in court. In our granddaughter's interview with the sheriff in their town, (we have a copy of the video) he asks very leading questions. He's a friend of their family, (we also know him) not trained in this type of questioning, and the mother was present, off camera, but we could hear her comments as he asked the questions. Our attorney tried to have it quashed as being improperly conducted, but was not successful. One of many reasons why he advised us not to pursue a trial. This nightmare began in October 2006.

A lie told often enough becomes true to the liar. I believe this has happened to our granddaughter. She's in counseling, but for the wrong problem. I worry a lot about her. She's now on probation for breaking and entering someone's home, at the tender age of 12.

My advice? Don't be alone with any children. It's too bad.

Anonymous | 8:56 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

You MUST be convicted in a court of law of a sex crime to be listed. I know a child that was molested with physical proof that it happened. It never went to court. The child was young and too tramatized to be a good witness. The proof didn't include the DNA of the offender so they couldn't be sure court would result in a conviction.
If someone is on the list they did something to get there, even if it was to falsly admit guilt. Prosecutors like to win. They don't take cases without proof or a lot of witnesses.

To Anonymous | 9:29 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Yes, you have to be convicted in a court of law. I feel bad for the child you mentioned. Mistakes are made both ways, unfortunately. If you accept a plea bargain, you have to admit guilt. Yes, my husband had to do that, although there was no guilt. He did an Alford Plea on one count, and had to admit guilt on the other, which was very hard to do. His case followed a series of high-profile sex offense cases in our area, and the likelihood of seating an 8-member jury not predisposed to finding him guilty was slim. There was no DNA evidence presented because there was none. There were no witnesses because nothing happened. There was no proof for the same reason, just her accusation. The police in our area never interviewed her, just spoke to her mother on the phone and took HER statement, and accepted the police interview from their area, which was not properly done. We probably should have fought it, but couldn't risk a 20-year sentence. That would have been a death sentence for him, at our age, and his health. I hope the child you know gets the help needed.

Anonymous | 11:58 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

One exception to a rule... shouldn't change the rule. One person taking the guilty plea and sentenced to some jail time and 10 years on a list should not detract from the heinous crimes committed by others on the list. Think about this invented (but could be real)scenario: A man sexually abuses a 9 year old girl, during the abuse he torments her and threatens her with mutilation. She is forever changed. She has a life of trust issues. She has real fear and nightmares. She never feels safe again. He gets caught and convicted. He spends his 18 months in jail. He is out on parole... do YOU want him as your next door neighbor or your grandchildï¿½s neighbor? Before you buy a house would you like to know if he is going to be your neighbor? Would you like to know what he was convicted of doing? Would you like to know what he was charged with? This is what the list is about. I want to know and so do many others. I am sorry for the one exception, but PLEASE do not detract from the reason for the list.

Understandable | 12:39 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007

The list is important and useful. Our next-door neighbor and two other people down the road are on the list. We don't have young children, so it doesn't worry us here because our grandchildren can't come here to visit. However, we are concerned about the offenders who live near our grandchildren. There's no easy answer. We are stuck with our situation, which I'm sure is the exception rather than the rule. Our son was molested by a relative, who is now in prison. Lifetime problems for our son. We have friends whose children have been molested. It is a huge problem in our world, and I'm afraid it will only get worse. Until our granddaughter admits she was not being truthful, there is nothing more we can do but live with the expense and trauma this has caused us and our family, and worry about the problems this deception will ultimately cause our granddaughter. There are victims on both sides--those who have been molested, and those who have been falsely accused--and the ensuing problems are great for both. My husband's on the registry for 15 years--5 while on probation, 10 following probation. He will probably pass away before then.

An Offender | 5:18 p.m. Dec. 18, 2007

When I was 24 I molested a 12 year old boy. I see two sides to this subject. I use being on the list as one of my tools to not hurt anyone else. Being on life-time parole is another. Unfortunately not everyone thinks the same as I do. And sadly there are people who have used my being on the list to hurt me. I also know of people who think their children are safe because they know about me. Sadly their children were abused by someone else they knew who was not on the list. I think people should really think about what it is they want the list to accomplish and then work towards that end.

Another Ex Offender | 7:25 a.m. Jan. 5, 2008

It has been over 18 years since my offense and I have not re offended. I moved to another state and remarried raising another child. In the state where I live, this past year they passed the Walsh federal bill. Before it passed I was not required to register because of the length of time from my offense.

Now that the new law is in effect I now have to register. While unfortunate I have complied. However, what I find more problematic is that I lived close to a school and I am now required to leave my home, legally purchased. I have tried to find a way out of this mess but to no avail.

When a person sincerely tries to change their lives but are met with constantly changing laws that make it harder for them to live as a part of society, I question the rationality of those laws.

Not being well off, I cannot afford an attorney to challenge the law. That's life.

Another Ex Offender | 7:32 a.m. Jan. 5, 2008

What concerns me is that if they keep changing the laws on sex offenders there may be a backlash. Already of the more than 600,000 sex offenders in this country, 100,000 have gone underground because of residency restrictions.

It is my opinion that these laws are designed to make offenders leave a state or provide a way to make it hard not to get rearrested.

If reason does not return then soon grocery stores, malls, churches, and other places will become outlawed for offenders.

I did make a serious mistake, one that will always haunt me. My daughter and I are on good terms now and I visit whenever I am in town. I do not allow myself to be in the company of any child unless my wife is with me. She is my safety net. I have no thoughts of any type of re offense. 90& of sex offenders come from people you know and trust.

I believe that everyone should have one chance. If they screw it up then it should be life in prison without parole.

Anonymous | 3:39 p.m. Jan. 16, 2008

My son made a mistake... "a mistake" just after turning 18. Mentally (per psychiatric records) he was 12-13. He grabbed an 11 yo girl's buttocks in passing. The girls parents reported it to the police because they simply wanted my son to know that this type of behavior isn't acceptable. They did not want to prosecute. However, an over zealous DA did file charges. Per our attorney's advice we accepted deferred adjudication. This was in 1992. We were never advised that our son would have to register as a sex offender. The psychiatric report on my son also stated that it was highly unlikely that he would ever repeat such an offense. Now 15 years later my son has a family of three... soon to be four. He struggles to find work, raising his family on little more than minimum wage and is continually searching for a decent place to raise his family. Communities continue to pass laws making it more and more difficult for him to live. Because he lived at my home for quite a while we have become apparently guilty of a similar crime by association. Something should be done. I am out of words.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.