Reader comments
Sex registry under fire

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.

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 isn�t fair.

Concerns About Journalistic Presentation:
The writer of this article wrote: �Greiner and Whinham want a registry to list the Wingets of the world.� I wish the writer would have been a bit more careful, and written �the Sean Wingets of the world� and not just �the Wingets of the world.� 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.

And another thing...

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

I do not dispute that the statement was made. But I do take issue with the writer�s attempt to offer a medical-psychological prognosis on Sean Winget by quoting an attorney�s 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 don�t think the writer�s use of the attorney quote was very intellectually honest, or respectful of reader intelligence.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.