Deseret News | Expanded offender registry too broad?

Reader comments
Expanded offender registry too broad?

Page:
1
2
Next >

DumbLaw | 12:42 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

If it doesn't have a sexual element to the crime then why are these crimes being added to the sex offender's list. The example given in this article by one of the judges with regards to unlawful detention could easily happen. Also, kidnapping by itself is not a sex crime. I thought the sex offender's list was for sex offenders not for every crime we consider really bad.

Avendora | 1:03 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

At what point does it stop being a regulatory action and start becoming a punitive one. With all of these laws being added, the state is effectively changing/modifying the individuals sentence without the benefit of a jury trial/opportunity to challenge it (prior to it's enactment). Also, they need to realise that these laws cannot be used retroactively. Then cannot be used to monitor someone convicted PRIOR to the enactment of the law. That is call Ex Post Facto and is outlawed via the constitution in Section 1, Article 9 (Federal) and Section 1, Article 10 (State).

The people who are making these laws need to be more realistic in their approach to SO laws. Treatment is the best option. Make them get Treatment. That is what lessens their risk levels. Not posting their info for the world to see. That actually has the ability to increase the recidivism rates.

Think about it.

These laws are having the opposite effect they were intended to have. They don't save lives, they increase the risk of another child dying without being found. How is that in the best interest of the child?

Avendora

ER | 1:32 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

This is my opinion, but I believe one of the driving factors of creating the SO list is because of the often compulsive nature of crime. Many Sex Offenders say they are driven to do those types of crimes. The repeat nature of the crime perpetrated on a segment of the population that is most defenseless is one of the reasons why the list was created and made available to the public. Kidnapping and unlawful detention inherently in my estimation does not have those compulsive components. If a non-SO person goes on this list and stays on the list even after they have completed the sentence then I feel they are continuing to be punished for a very possible one-time act. That is not the same as Sexual Offence. Why not put repeated traffic violators on the list? When does it stop? A "list" of those who have committed the Kidnapping and UD type crimes have a criminal record that is easily accessible by Law Enforcement. If the crime is not one of compulsion, is not of a sexual nature and does not show a repeated cycle then why would you make it public on a SO list?

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 2:10 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

How about we just put red dots on anyones house who has ever been convicted of a crime. That way we can keep an eye on all of our neighbors....

Why this law hasn't been struck down as unconstitutional is besides me.

JW | 4:15 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

People keep asking, year after year after year, how and why stupid and crazy laws get passed by our legislature and yet you keep re-electing the people who do it ? DUH !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob M. | 4:25 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I agree with the first two comments, especially the ex-post facto mention of the U.S. Constitution. Two other comments: at what time does a person finally "repent" of a child abuse, etc., conviction? Can he or she ever get the "stain" a prior conviction off or does he or she wear it around like Hester Pyrne in "The Scarlet letter" for the rest of their lives? And 2) The expansion costs you money. Is that what you want to do with your hard earned money?

Bob G | 4:29 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I always thought public persecution and ridicule by the government was unconstitutuional. These register are nothing more than means of persecuting individuals ever after they have paid their obligation to society. Persecuting individuals is criminal and our nation has done very well without having to persecute after justice has been served. Every american has the right to the same freedoms even after having been in jail and served his time. Law enforcement is going too far in its actions of legal harassment and persecution for crime already considered a closed case. If prosecutors and law enforcement are so worried about criminals that they must be palced on a persecution list then why are the out of jail? Persecution is a means of going around the law of double jeopardy and convicting released inmates without any trial or judgement or evidicence of wrong doing, even by our laws. When people are released from jail their obligation to society ends and their freedoms are restored as US citizens and law enforcement or no government agency has the right to further prosecute and persecute individuals without another trial. Future possible crimes are not prosecuteable nor cause for these kinds of laws.

Richard G | 5:58 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

If we are going to add kidnappers, why not also add murderers and armed robbers to the list? How about auto thieves? Wouldn't you want to know if your neighbor might steal your car? Or how about those convicted of making homemade bombs in their basement? Wouldn't it be nice to know if one of these people lived nearby?

Why the Change? | 6:04 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

In the past I have searched the registry for a specific NAME but now you can only search a specific AREA. This does me no good for what I do. So, in retrospect, the HAVE made it harder for the public to research. Now if a woman meets a man or a man meets a woman he/she can't just look him/her up. I think they should go back to the old way. It was better.

mike | 6:16 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

This law/website is a classic example of the invasiveness by government and the public into peoples private lives. With changes in the wording this law could find it's way into your private life even if all you'd ever done was get a speeding ticket and/or parking ticket. It's time we as a society wake up and put an end to these ridiculous invasive law's to and including the overly broad Patriot Act.

Use Correct Verbage | 6:20 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Kidnapping by parents is not really kidnapping, just as statutory rape and rape by a spouse is not really rape.

Different words ought to be used in each of these situations to reflect the different realities.

When I hear the word kidnapping or rape, I don't immediately assume a horendous crime anymore, I find myself waiting to see what the actual situation is. We have devalued the meaning of these words.

exasperated | 6:51 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Legislators feel like they need to sponsor a law to justify the money and time being spent on the hill. This law has unintended consequences that dilute the power of the registry.

Congratulations to Clearfield for electing a self serving politician who didn't do his homework. Congratulations to the rest of us for electing politicians who voted the bill into law.

DisgustedWithUtah | 7:06 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

It finally comes to me that Utah is a fake conservative state. We are among the states with highest taxes, and individual liberties are being chipped away for the common good. And we still claim to be conservatives?

re Richard G | 5:58 a.m. | 7:22 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

You may be joking about expanding the list even more, however given what happened to the poor kid in Lehi, got his leg blown off by some idiot who was playing around with illegal fireworks,

I AGREE It would be useful to be able to look into a registry and be able to see who is making illegal explosives.

Why did they elect him? | 7:29 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Saying the prosecutors wanted unlawful detention included is trying to shift the blame for a bad law onto someone else. Rep. Ray, YOU sponsored this bill, YOU argued for its passage and YOU are responsible for what it says and does. YOU trusted and relied on others to do YOUR job for YOU. Now, when people point out your folly, you want to shift the blame. (it's called taking responsibility, look it up)

Just admit that YOU simply carried the bill without thinking through the potential consequences. Did you even read it?

This law will weaken the registry by including people that pose no threat of repeat sexual offense. Why register everyone who has committed any crime and get it over with? Are habitual speeders a greater risk of injury to kids in the neighborhood? Or to save money we could just require people to agree to tattoo a large red letter on their forehead as a condition of release on parole. You know, like a "T" for theives, an "M" for murderers, an "A" for adulterers . . . oh wait, Nate Hawthorne already thought of that . . .

Big Brother and Satan | 7:37 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Big Brother is watching everyone, and before too long, he will make a plan for all of us to get back to heaven.

molested-as-a-child Morgan | 7:39 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

"Kidnapping by parents is not really kidnapping, just as statutory rape and rape by a spouse is not really rape."

That is the single most offensively incorrect statement I've "heard" all week. Yes, I will agree that parental kidnapping **MIGHT** not be the same as the kidnapping of a complete stranger, and that statutory rape **MIGHT** not be the same situation as a "normal" rape, but whether or not you're married, no means no, and spousal rape is, in actuality, worse than rape by a stranger, since it's committed by the one person you're supposed to be able to trust above all others. Your comments, "Use Correct Verbage", sound a great deal like self-defense.

I think we should make rape and child molestation death sentence crimes, then we won't need the registry.

JW Morrison | 8:02 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

The registry already weakens its intent because you have people on it that are listed as the most worrisome only because the Adam Walsh Act made states reclassify people.

Might as well have a registry for murders, DUI recidivists (after all many hurt children), and drug pushers. I mean, after all, its to protect the children.

lkf | 8:07 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Just because prosecutors want a law to make their jobs "easier" does not necessarily mean it is a good idea. We have a Bill of Rights for a reason, and it is not to make it easier for prosecutors, but rather to make sure they do their jobs right. We could make it really easy for police and prosecutors by just repealing the Bill of Rights, but then, Watch out everyone. You will be next!

Waterman | 8:10 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I think its great, lets make a list for ALL those that have been convited of a crime, seems only fair. I for one want to know who all the People who have been convicted of a money fruad claim here in Utah, wil save us all kinds of money. That way we wont get duped by the nice man in church.

Jeffrey | 8:10 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Millions of people, in this state and elsewhere, would do well to read the book, "The Scarlet Letter", as the commenter above me insinuated.

After all, forgiveness is just what we talk about in church; the rest of the week we have to make up for all that Sunday-loving with Weekday-condemning.

When "crimes" like a drunk man relieving himself in a back alley can get someone thrown on the list you know the whole thing is a joke.

Nothing like a little public humiliation - for the rest of your entire life - to make you feel good about yourself.

But hey, you want to know if someone dangerous moves next to you, right? Good idea. I also want to know if someone is a Democrat, homosexual, liberal, non-Mormon, etc. so let's start adding those lists, too.

Just_the_start | 8:14 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

It is actually very smart the way that they start wtih a group that people tend to hate and now are expanding these list. It seems that they are following an example that worked in the past. Soon they might start doing tatoos as well.

ï¿½The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.ï¿½ - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)

GatewayToNevada | 8:23 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Other than the "re Richard G" post, who wants the list to include explosives", I am pleasantly surprised by the comments. People finally are waking up to the "slippery slope" nature of all laws - they start small with some good intention, and wind up controlling every facet of our lives. What ever happened to real conservatism? Maybe it can experience a rebirth.

uncannygunman | 8:33 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

If "paying for your crime" no longer pays for you crime, and public information and safety is so important, why not place ALL crimes on a Criminal List so we can all know everything about our criminal neighbors? Wouldn't you want to know that your friendly neighbor who's trying to give you "investment advice" is a convicted securities fraudster?

Actually, I prefer getting rid of the list altogether, but if you're going to have one it might as well be complete and nondiscriminatory.

too much | 8:42 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

10 years from now this sight will include who attends church, what church and how often...

Who buys what at the State liquor...

These area all things we need to know about our neighbors.

Nobody important | 8:48 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

The constitution protects us from making laws that are retroactive. You are doing nothing about that.
Pretty soon everybody that isn't in some kind of enforcement will be required to bow to big brothers demands.

Mark | 9:09 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

These lists are already too broad and to make them broader reduces their usefulness.

Our legislators have too much time on their hands.

angry | 9:17 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I agree with the expansion, but it does not go far enough. Why aren't they adding people with Murder convictions, drug convictions, DUI's? DUI's harm or kill more kids than sex offenders every year. Let's see this thing include everyone above a misdemeanor. If it is a felony, put them on it! I want to know if Joe next door has ever beaten his wife or kids. I want to know if Martha was ever convicted in 'accidentally' killing her husband. These people are unstable and need to be tracked! I want to see embezzlers on it as well, because I need to know if I can trust them. Meth makers, would also be a good group, as the labs they have typically BLOW UP.

Prometheus | 9:22 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

We need to rehabilitate people into society after they serve their time and repent of their crime. We should eliminate the registry so that people who repent can become productive members of society again. The list allows bad people to harass and persecute these individuals long after they have changed their life around.

Problem | 9:26 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

The problem with the online registry is that even after a name gets removed, it doesn't mean it will get removed from many, many other online registries.

There are a lot of websites out there that fill their databases full of people who are only "accused" of a sex crime, or who were tried and found innocent.

The "government" website may play by the rules, but what happens on the internet, stays on the internet. Companies that do background checks not only check the state registries, they also check out privately owned websites for a criminal history or even an accusation.

This is outrageous and needs to be stopped - starting at the source.

Come on | 9:45 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I think people are getting a little far afield here, sarcastically suggesting we put all serious offenders on the list because they hurt people. Obviously, the crimes of kidnapping and voyeurism are related to many sex offenses, in fact they usually proceed them. It is perfectly reasonable to adjust the name of the list and add these names. By the way, it is not a secret when you are committed of a crime. It is a matter of public record, the list just makes it easier for the public to find out.

Come on | 9:43 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I meant "convicted of committing a crime!"

Oh well.... | 10:07 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I guess if you commit a crime, keep in mind that you forfeit your societal rights once proven that you are quilty.

The innocent needed to be protected, not the criminals....

victim | 10:08 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

"Waterman | 8:10 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008
I think its great, lets make a list for ALL those that have been convicted of a crime, seems only fair. I for one want to know who all the People who have been convicted of a money fruad claim"

I agree, just post all the felonies, and reference it with google maps. I want to know where they are. Make it searchable by crime, city, name, known alias, and ssn.

If you think a couple years in the slammer is 'payment' for a crime, I'd like to spend two years there for say $2M on an embezzlement charge.

RL | 10:27 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

To: molested as a child Morgan,
The problem with your suggestion is that there are still and there always will be adults and children that claim they were molested or raped when it really didn't happen that way, and get away with it. The police, judicial system, and jurors aren't perfect and can't see through everyone's lies. Not to mention the fact that it's already been established that taking someone's life is only appropriate when they took someone elses. I was abused myself, so I'm not speaking of something I know nothing about. Bitterness and hate only hurt ourselves more than the original offense(s). There's a better way, and it doesn't include hysterical and hateful reactions, but educated and well thought out ones, while remembering that everyone is guilty of hurting others in some way, and that everyone has good in them and everyone is priceless to God, and therefore should be to us too. Everyone.

Apalled | 10:32 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

You can search for all crimes committed by people in UT, there is often a website promoted on Deseret News' ad banners that gives that option. I for one am happy they are expanding this registry, and think it would be important to publish the crimes of offenders. Yes, I do want to know if my neighbor has kidnapped, raped, murdered, or even peeped on someone. Our world becomes less safe every day, let's get the scum out of our society and give prosecutors and law enforcement the tools they need.

Joe | 10:44 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I agree with most of the comments. As chairman of our neighborhood watch, I have had printouts of the four convicted sex offenders living on the four streets of our "neighborhood" dropped in my mail box. Now what? One lives 4 houses down from me, another lives half a block away, and I visit his family every month, too.

The only reason for the sex offender registry, IMHO, is that some sex offenders tend to repeat, and it is useful for parents to be aware of who is living near them. That being said, these people have done their time, paid the price demanded by society, so why continue to punish them?

If they aren't safe enough to release into the community, then why are they released? If they are released, then why continue to label and punish them, particularly if they are first time offenders?

Now expanding the list to include other crimes is too much! Perhaps we need a speed registry, listing all those likely to drive above the speed limit. And how about a list of all those who have ever had a tax return audited; they might try that again.

Joe | 10:52 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Representative Ray states that "anyone who kidnaps isn't a safe person." Brother Ray, the major religion of the state believes that people can change; that if someone at sometime did a violent or criminal act, that they can change (or did you miss that lesson). And people can be charged and convicted of kidnapping without a violent act being committed.

The husband and wife who took their daughter on a joy ride because they didn't like who she wanted to marry; are they unsafe kidnappers? Was any gun involved? And do you think they will repeat this crime? I don't think so.

Maybe we could save the state a lot of money by just branding convicted felons on their foreheads with an appropriate mark, so everyone would know at a glance who is who.

Like I said in my previous post, if they are a danger to society, they we need to do something to make them less dangerous. But branding someone for life seems to be a poor idea, even for many listed as sex offenders.

Franz | 11:01 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

How about a bad person list. We will list all people who are murderers, robbers, burglars, sex offenders, kidnappers, gang members, loiterers, reckless drivers, and anyone who has ever been convicted of any crime including speeding. They are all bad people and I don't want them in my neighborhood. In fact, let's include people who let their dogs wander my neighborhood and keep me awake with their dogs barking. I want to know about these people. They are a bad influence, and I want to keep them out of my neighborhood.

Anonymous to a friend | 11:23 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I know for a fact, that a friend of mine is on the "Sex Offender List" for 10 years based on a charge in which, admittedly he likes Porn, but he was downloading from "Limewire" and it downloaded some "Questionable" images onto his computer which he may or may not have even seen. Based on 4 immages he plead down to 1, and was given 30 days in jail, all kinds of "Counciling" for Pedifile Tendancies, and has to be on the Sex Offender List FOR 10 YEARS! The GUY IS THE LAST THING FROM A CHILD PREDITOR I know, he and his wife even baby-sit our kids and I trust them completely. He would kill anyone who messed with his kids, or mine! He is on the "Sex Offender List" for this accidental download. You can't trust the system anymore, you must know the individuals circumstances! The guy on YOUR CORNER may have gotten out of Jail for being an AXE MURDERER, where is that "LIST"? You wouldn't even know he is there, or what he had done unless you personnally went and did a back ground check on each person in your neighborhood at a whopping $25 PerPerson.

Cosmo | 11:31 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

It's called "Mission Creep". If the sign on the door
says "Witch Hunters Inc.", then there must be witches.

Prometheus | 11:49 a.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Criminals need to be protected too. Just because someone has committed a crime, doesn't mean he should be fair game for people to commit crimes against him. Who among us has never broken a law? If someone has served his punishment, he should be allowed to get on with his life.

Branding criminals for life is not in society's best interest, except for those criminals who are truly dangerous and have not repented. If you put a man on a registry like this, it will be hard for him to get a job, or a house, and even if he does, his neighbors may shun him. In that case, what recourse does the man have except more crime? Let him repent and become a good, productive member of society again.

Sokol | 12:23 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Why do we not have a publicized list of women or men who make fraulent, false sexual abuse allegations, knowingly and intentionally? Another words, let people be aware of the potential for individuals intent on besmurching the character of good, honest, mothers or fathes...mostly this happens against dads, when all else fails in a custody battle. We need a posted list of these women and men.

Steve Harward | 12:21 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

We are doing our society no good when we label a person for life. The Sex Offender list is only useful to the extent that it helps protect neighborhoods from someone who has an uncontrollable compulsion to sexually abuse others. The ever-growing invasion of our personal lives by government has got to stop.

Amen to Anonymous | 12:41 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

I know someone who is currently being investigated for the exact same thing as your friend. I wonder how many of them are out there? Accidentally downloading a small amount of "questionable" images has probably happened to most people who use Limewire. I think the idea behind this list is good, but where does it end? I've known my friend for years. He's a GREAT guy, I'd trust my kids with him over MOST people I know. Yes, he made a stupid MISTAKE, but jail time and YEARS on the sex offender registry is UNJUST. If any of you use Limewire, STOP! This could be you, too.

Anonymous | 1:37 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Megan's Law is named after seven-year-old Megan Kanka, a New Jersey girl who was raped and killed by a known child molester who had moved across the street from the family without their knowledge. In the wake of the tragedy, the Kankas sought to have local communities warned about sex offenders in the area. All states now have a form of Megan's Law.

Make no mistake about it, sex offenders are usually repeat offenders. If they have committed any sex crime against anyone...they deserve to be on a list so that people can be aware. I know that a lot of you use the arguement that they have "repented" and that we should forgive. I doubt you would willingly send your children over to your sex offender neighbor's house knowing what you now know about them. And if you did... you are an unfit parent!

Tim P | 1:52 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

It is time that we all stand up and put a stop to this sex offender registry thing. Because if we do not soon it will include DUIL,s and most of the people we have elected to office have a DUI, and we should not know all the crimes they have committed. But the real truth is it will never go all the way to DUI because so many elected people do have one or more DUI,s. But just the same this sex offender registry is not to protect anyone it is so that those in office can make us feel good, feel protected and feel like they (those in office) are doing something for the good of all of us. And at the same time they get a lot of free press when they talk about the new law they are trying to pass and that turns into votes at election time.

awesomeron | 2:18 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

They Changed The Name of The List. So its legal deal with it. Maybe people who commit violent crimes need to be on a list. People who detain people against their will also. It should be a case by case basis on somethingï¿½s. A Court challenge should take care of this matter. Soon people will be put on lists for all sorts of things, no end in site Sex Offenders we should know about, perhaps people that commit violent crimes, but there has to be a stop at some point. Next will come being put on a list without due process. Not going to services, Being caught Masturbating, being seen coming out of an adult store with a bag in hand. Buying fatty food., Doing OpEds and Posts and many other things. The repressors always start with a good purpose and then want a little more and a little more. Then it ends up with "people watching people looking back at us." or if you do this "it will become part of your permanent record." Keeping the Box thatï¿½s life square tight and well packed with the lid shut.

Moose | 2:37 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

This should definately be expanded to include anyone who has had unclean thoughts.

RL | 2:38 p.m. Aug. 7, 2008

Many of you are talking in circles. You want the sex offender registry, but how dare they add kidnappers too it! Do you have any idea how insane that sounds? I, for one, am totally fine if every criminal has to register for every crime other than parking tickets. Maybe people would start taking responsibility for their own actions, instead of blaming every freaking little thing on everyone else around them. It works on sex offenders. They have the lowest reoffend rates of any crime. I mean for crying out loud, if it's good for sex offenders, why not all the other criminals????? I've heard the arguement that the registry is there to protect our children that can't protect themselves (nevermind that it doesn't protect them from the ones not caught! HELLO!)... sex crimes aren't the only ones that hurt our innocent children. All crime does. And some crime hurts our children just as badly. If they want to make it a kipnappers registry too, let them. And have them add the rest to it while they are at it.

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.