Reader comments
Sex offender can remain anonymous online

Why must society continue to persecute and punish an individual after they have fully paid their debt to society for a crime that they committed?

Utah law makers continue to pass laws that are unconstitutional. Even a sex offender is entitled to first amendment rights in this country.

OK, but what if he uses the internet to entice more youngsters for more crimes?

On the other hand, what if he does surrender the names... It's not that hard to get new ones...so what's the point?

You can never fully pay your debt to "society" for a sex crime, and you can never give back that which was stolen from the victim, especially if they're young. We need to continue to monitor these deviants, no matter if they're "reformed."

SEX OFFENDERS OFTEN ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS. MANY REMAIN A DANGER TO SOCIETY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. IT IS A PROTECTION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Once a person has finished their jail/prison and parole/probation period they shouldn't have the law's hooks in them anymore period no matter what the crime is. Their debt/punishment is paid, end of story.

Could they go out and commit the crime again? Sure they could. But when you're no longer in the system, the system shouldn't be making requirements of you... your punishment is over.

People who are alcoholics, they could commit a DUI at any time... should they for the rest of their lives be required to stay away from bars and/or report which bars they frequent to law enforcement (to be monitored)? No? Well then why should sex offenders? I used this analogy because the share common issues/problems that are lifelong.

As someone pointed out, what's the point of this law? All the person has to do is create new online names and/or use a public computer. And the sex offender registry that so many seem to love, it doesn't make life any safer for your children... the real danger doesn't come from these strangers on the list, most abuse comes from a family member or trusted friend. It's just a false sense of security.

For people who think Sex offenders can never change...don't be stupid. It has been proven that sex offenders re offend less sexually than any other class of criminal.

The problem with these feel good laws is that they don't go after the true predators. If the law treated the true predator instead of treating all sex offenders the same way, then we would see progress.

I am a victim of sexual abuse. Let me say this to you:

Being addicted to alcohol doesn't guarantee that you commit a heinous crime against another human being that they will never fully recover from.

Being a sex offender/predator DOES guarantees that you have committed a crime against another human being that they will NEVER fully recover from.

That is why the "alcohol to sex offender" analogy is not accurate.

For anyone who thinks sex offenders can change, I ask you to google it, research it for yourselves.

It is EXTREMELY rare for a sex offender to change ways and sadly, even the sex offenders honestly admit they will never be fully in control of themselves to be trusted around the people they like to harm. It is a tragedy for both the sexual offender and the victim.

I think most honest sexual predators would agree that they need to be kept away from the temptation to commit their crime again by society protecting themselves from their sadly sick minds.

For the most part, it is incurable.

Look it up yourselves, I weep for both the victim and predator.

Sorry you were abused, but I have googled it and I can say that most sex offenders do not reoffend. If some of these media personalities decide to interview a diagnosed PEDOPHILE, then yes I could see one saying he can't be trusted...

But, not all people of the sex offender registry are pedophiles or predators, and have not been diagnosed as such, nor determined as such by a court order. So when you use those terms 'Sex offender" "predator" and "pedophile" understand they are all different things, they are not the same and cannot be said to be...

On the one hand if this guy is not breaking the law, the law shouldn't be persecuting him. I had a brother who served time in the State prison for ten years and he will NEVER have a normal life because he carries the ex-con label. On the other hand, even though I know sex offenders can be reformed, I would rather be vigilant and protect my children as well as the one-time offender from any possible inappropriate behavior.

I need to correct what you said. It was true, but you left out one VERY key detail... that being if the offender successfully completes a therapy treatment program the re-offending rate goes down/is much lower.

If a person attracted to those who are under 18 and has been acting on it never learns how to control their urges, how to keep themselves from acting on it, then they'll most likely keep on doing it. Simply spending some time in jail, prison, or on probation isn't enough to stop most.

Being addicted to alcohol doesn't guarantee that the person will commit a crime, that's true. But you're wrong about the long lasting effects of crimes such as DUI's can have. If you drive drunk and kill someone I'd say you can't get more long lasting than that, you certainly don't recover from it.

The word "predator" attached to those who have abused is a sensationalized word, it's used to envoke scary images for the public.

You're also wrong about the analogy between sex offender and alcoholic being a bad/innacurate one, let me show you why. Both people are inflicted with an addiction, a driving need for something that most can't control without outside help teaching them how to control their desires/urges. And with both, the alcoholic and the pedophile (I assume that's the type of offender we're talking about here), it's not something that is going to go away... it's something both will have to deal with/control the rest of their lives. Now, see how it's a correct analogy?

Sex offenders can't be "cured" true, but you're wrong in saying they can't change (look it up). Many can and do keep themselves from (re)offending. It's not hopeless.

You said, "Simply spending some time in jail, prison, or on probation isn't enough to stop most."

A friend has been convicted, pled guilty, was sentenced to serve time AND ATTEND THERAPY. The therapy was part of the sentence; sex offenders are now sentenced with a requirement to complete therapy.

The courts have learned a lot & have implemented programs that work towards REHABILITATION. If there are offenders which are still a risk to the community, they should remain incarcerated or on parole.

The registry serves its purpose when it lists individuals who are on parole, who are still in therapy.

However, it misses the mark when there is no appeals process, no individual evaluation about who should remain on the list and for how long. A simple answer is to tie the registry to the length of the offender�s parole, if they are still a risk to the community, they shouldn't be removed from parole. Everybody should be crying for a lengthier parole period; extended monitoring should performed by AP&P.

Once time has been served, therapy completed, parole terminated, their listing in the registry should be terminated.

I know, I'm fully aware that it is now commonplace to order therapy when they get sentenced. However... from what I hear the therapy programs offered in prison (they don't at the county jails that I'm aware of) isn't exactly the best. The best therapy programs are the out-patient ones that many/most seem to get in addition to probation.

Only the trully dangerous, the ones for example who include actual violence and/or mental unstability (like say Brian David Mitchell who kidnapped and abused/raped Elizabeth Smart) should be kept locked up for the safety of the public.

I disagree with you on the registry, unless by "it's purpose" you mean "making people aware of someone's past record". If we're talking about adult rapists on the list (with adult victims), then yes maybe it's a usefull warning... but if we're talking about those with children as victims, then not so much. Why? Because a child is much more likely to be abused by someone they know than a stranger on this list.

I do agree with your final statment, and that is how it works... when the 10 years (after probation) are up they are off the list.

I could've sworn yesterday my first reply to you did make it on here, but now it's gone... that or I'm wrong and it didn't make it past the moderator (no reason why it shouldn't have as it didn't break any of the stated rules... nor should this reply).

I'll try to re-cap what was said in that missing reply...

My analogy between an alcoholic and a pedophile was accurate. Both of these people have a life long problem to deal with that doesn't go away, both need to learn ways to keep their desires under control... but while neither can be "cured", there IS hope. They can go on to live productive lives.

You're also mistaken about victims of an alcoholic. Should that person drive drunk and kill their victim, you don't recover from that or can't learn to deal with it (as victims of abuse can).

Sex offenders can AND do change for the better, not offending again... but usually only after successfully completing a therapy program. It's not as rare as you suggest.

Kids are MUCH more in danger of abuse from a relative or friend than a stranger on the registry... this is a fact.