Quantcast

Comments about ‘Parents fear kids will be on sex list’

Return to article »

Trading of nude photos raises registry concerns

Published: Saturday, April 5 2008 12:37 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Juveniles ARE on rhe Registry

I just did a random search in the Salt Lake area by zip code, and in at least one area there is a 17 year old and several 19 year olds on the Registry. So the statement that there are no juveniles on the Registry in not accurate. "2nd degree assault with sexual motivation" is the offense listed for the 17 year old. If I were a parent of the kids who have been taking inappropriate pictures with their cell phones, I would be concerned, not only because what they have done is just wrong, and not very smart, but because it could lead to more serious behavior in the future. Then they would be on the Registry. The young men who are Registered because they had sex with an underage girlfriend don't belong on the Registry. They are not likely to be a threat to children, for example. But being on the Registry sure makes it difficult to go forward with your life, going to school, getting a job, even a house. Some people should be Registered, but a lot who are on the Registry do not need to be there.

why not

As a parent, I would want to know that a person (potentially) dating my child had taken and passed around lewd photos of minors

Duh

"The man, who served time for sexually abusing a 9-year-old girl, claims the sex offender registry stigmatizes him as a sexual predator"

This is because men who sexually abuse 9-year-old-girls ARE predators.

One can only hope the justices catch that fine point.

Get Serious, Please

Dupaix claims that "we all know" taking dirty pictures with a cell is not a serious offense. It seems like short slippery steps from taking lewd pictures of oneself to passing around lewd pictures of others to taking lewd pictures of classmates without their knowledge. The close quarters of school with shared changing facilities etc would offer the budding deviants ample opportunity. As a parent I am concerned with some legal authorities cavalier attitude toward protecting other children from these juvenile predators.

Prosecutor

Lost in all the handwringing and bedwetting over deviant juveniles with cell phones is this -- it is not up to the Utah Supreme Court to decide whether the law should cover this form of deviance. Rather, that is the province of the people, through the legislature. And that decision has been made.

In an appropriate case, a predatory teen pervert with a cell phone camera could end up in the sex offender registry. So maybe they should think twice before acting.

Overwrought parents burning up the phone lines to prosecutors could more profitably expend their efforts supervising their kids, rather than browbeating prosecutors just doing the job the taxpayers pay them [so cheerfully and so well] to do.

Bob G

These parents need to understand that sex offenders start early, in their youth in puberty when sex becomes a biological force. Parents don't control their kids or educate them on social behaviors and a few learning the hard way will educate many more about proper social behavior. This will catch future sex offenders early and keep them from commiting crimes as adults and preying on other victims. If parents are getting concerned then they should think about taking away the cell phones from their children. They have no real need for cell phones anyway, its an expensive toy they abuse and misuse.

Sarkis

Are you kidding me? Register them as sex offenders, this is ridiculous. In fact, it is ridiculous to even sue them in the first place.

Because it is not "socially acceptable." What the hell does that matter, many things aren't socially acceptable, these stupid lawyers.

What ever

I know what the laws say today but have you paid attention to the political posture bills passed by our legislature. Who is to say that thy in the need for more posturing is not going to take the topic of Sexual Abuse (most of them do not understand it anyway) and demand that even minor misdemeanors need to be on the database. With our current paranoia about the whole thing I would not put it past them.

P.S. By the way the Juveniles may not make it on to the Sex Abuse Registry but they can easily make into the State Licensing Data Base via a supported finding from DCFS. This is a life long list.

they should

Your children that take and distribute indecent pictures with their cell phones are sex offenders and should be prosecuted and forced to register.

katie

i don't think 18 and 19 year old boys who have sex with their underage girlfriends belong on the registry, however, people who sexually abuse 9 year old girls do. No question. It annoys me when these sex offenders feel like its an injustice that they are on the sex registry, when they unjustly sexually abused another person. Justice can never be completely served for that person. I would know. I was abused as a child, and my offender was let off with no jail time, no punishment at all. I feel like justice was not served, and even if he had been sentenced and put on the registry for a few years, I would never feel justice had been served because of what he took from me. And I know almost every sexually abused person feels the same. The community has every right to know who is a risk to society. That way one less person won't have to go through what 1 in 3 girls, and 1 in 5 boys go through. The numbers are way too high for sex offences. And it's partly because justice is not being served. Keep those perverts in prison.

a solution

here is a solution. kids don't need cell phones i managed just fine through out my school years with out one. if they must have one don't give them a phone with camaras on it! if i was a school board i would order cell phone jamming devices installed and turned on during school hours! if it is a real emergency parents can call the kids through the school office. keep in mind i also had a girl who sluffed class they day before and when teacher was gone she called the attendance office pretending to be her mother and excused her absence! office aid brought the note right to her. parents do you know what your kids do?

CITIZEN

To all sex offenders that prey on little children,"HANG EM HIGH"

Ernie Floyd McCootus Woo

This crybaby thinks he has a right to prove he is not a sex predator. The rest of us have the right to steer clear of this perv. Frankly, I don't care if he ever kicks the habit of fondling children. I don't want to do business or rent housing to this filthy animal.

Re: Prosecuter

I agree parents should spend their time working with their children instead of on the phone, however, I would encourage them to speak out against the SOR. Should a child find himself/herself suddenly and unexpexctedly guilty of a lack of judgment which lands them in court and pleading guilty to a law that heretofor was unknow them, I would hope that when that price has been paid and the courts feel it is appropriate to remove them from court and probation monitoring, that they could be removed the registery as well. I don't understand why people are on the registery when parole offices and the courts believe an individual is no longer a threat to the community.

Re: Katie

I understand your strong feelings about abusers of young children and I openly admit that I cannot understand your personal pain from your experience.

Once an abuser is convicted, I even agree that prisons should be used and when appropraite monitored through the probationary process. When appropriate, I even agree that extended sentences should be used.

However, like you I agree that there are some that don't need to be on the list and that is where I have confidence in the judical system to determine if they need extended monitoring using Adult Probation and Parole. As long as the courts believe they should be monitored, then they should be registered and monitored.

However, once the courts have declaired that they are no longer a threat to the community, then why should they be on the list and no longer monitored by the system?

Rika

"it is not up to the Utah Supreme Court to decide whether the law should cover this form of deviance. Rather, that is the province of the people, through the legislature. And that decision has been made."

Toss the Constitution! Who needs those pesky checks and balances when we can have pure majority rule? Of course, it's not really majority rule because the elected legislature could decide they've been elected for life terms and the courts wouldn't be able to step into that "province."

As for kids on the registry, it's incorrect to state none shall be listed. Other states already list kids, and various interstate agreements require states to list them should they move. Additionally, AWA requires the listing of kids--and state legislatures are often thrilled to expand the list. And since it's now acceptable to pass retroactive laws, the list of qualifying crimes could expand every (election) year.

But parents shouldn't worry. After all, the Supreme Court found the registry wasn't at all punishment, and there was no proof it would lead to loss of home or job, harrassment, vandalism, or murder. Anyone with knowledge to the contrary should let the Court know of their error.

Re: Rika

The Utah Supreme court should not decide whether the law should cover this form of deviance. However, they can decide that the registry is outside of the constitutional support, if a citizen has done all to comply with the courts, paid their price to society, has satisfied all of the terms of probation.

At that point all citizens have constitutional rights that still need to be protected. Police records will always remain, jail times can be extended and Court Ordered Therapy can become more comprehensive, even probation can be extended when appropriate.

Individuals who are dangerous can still be monitored and can have specific limitations imposed by the courts.

The registry has many individuals who are not a threat to the community, they have completed their therapy, they have counseled with their religious leaders, they have paid the asking price and have even sought forgiveness from all who would listen. Judges, Prosecutors, Therapists, Probation Officers are unanimous in stating that they are no longer a threat to the community.

The current law needs to be changed.

Former Sexual Offender

Being realistic, if an adult did what these children did, then prison time would be involved. Child pornography is child pornography, and the age of the producers, distributors, and/or connoisseurs does not matter -- for these children to end up on the sex offender registry would be justice served at least to a minor extent. Who cares that they will be stigmatized for at least ten years, thousands of offenders on the list already are being stigmatized, some for doing less than producing, distributing, and/or perusing child porn.

I find it amazing how people are great judges of someone not related to them, and can support them being stigmatized with the registry, yet when it's one of their own, a family member, the story changes. The law is what these people made it, them and their children should not be above nor outside of it.

It will cost a lot less taxpayer money to simply charge theses kids with their child porn crimes and register them, than the lawsuits to follow the special treatment of these kids.

Or, we could just change the laws reasonable as they should have been in the first place.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments