Deseret News | Keep offenders on registry, say most Utahns

Reader comments
Keep offenders on registry, say most Utahns

Page:
1
2
Next >

cry me a river | 6:38 a.m. May 5, 2008

The registry only organizes and collects public record information available anyway. Citizens can draw what conclusions they will from the data. If you don't want to show up on the registry don't do the crime. The truth will set you free.

always keep them on the list | 6:48 a.m. May 5, 2008

They should be on registry forever.
I want to know who lives by me.

Lynn H in Tennessee | 6:56 a.m. May 5, 2008

Ridiculous. 85-90% of sex crimes are committed by family or friends, NOT strangers!

Comments continue below

Appeal Process Needed | 7:23 a.m. May 5, 2008

"Keep offenders on the registry with no ability to have a court review their status", sounds great until,...

One considers that in Utah a 12 year old boy was convicted with having sex with a minor 13 year old girl and now is a registerd sex offender,

Sounds great until one remembers the fact that teenagers in Davis county are now convicted of sex offenses because they shared pictures of themselves taken with cell phones.

So long as there are prosecutors and judges and laws that are not based in common sense, it only makes sense to allow appeals by people treated unjustly.

If Utah'ns want the protection of a registry, given our history of rediculus outcomes, we need to allow those unjustly treated to have their case looked at again.

Christian principles in actions | 7:32 a.m. May 5, 2008

Good to see the LDS people trying to be Christ like. Especially to the gospel principles of repentance and forgiveness.

Anon | 7:51 a.m. May 5, 2008

If one is not a pedophile, or rapist then let them off the hook. It's interesting to note that those who want people on the list forever wouldn't want others to mention their mistakes everytime they met. If you were ever on a list for past misdeeeds, then you would know what I mean. Do you think that minor offenses shold be listed forever? For anyone to say "do the crime do the time," 10-20 years without a repeat, should be sufficient, in the end God will judge with the mercy that was rendered by the unmerciful in like manner. Count on it. Not all offenders are a threat to society.

uncannygunman | 7:51 a.m. May 5, 2008

You know, I'm pretty familiar with the constitution, and I just can't remember seeing "a parent's right to know about convicted sex offenders living in their community." Must be in the same amendment as the "right to go anywhere I want and make people stop smoking around me."

Seriously, a desire is not the same as a right. Rights give power to people as against the government, not excuses to the government to further control the people.

Re: Cry Me a River | 7:57 a.m. May 5, 2008

Your statement is no longer correct, the new law now requires username and passwords for all forms of electronic communication and now more frequent updates. My concern is that ï¿½citizensï¿½ include HR directors in most companies and they begin to establish company policies based solely on weather you are on the list and not the specifics of your case, apartment managers jump to the same conclusions. If you are on the list, there is a good chance that housing options become very, very, VERY limited and job opportunities are even fewer; it creates a perpetual cycle of failure. That truth my friend does not set you free.

JR | 7:57 a.m. May 5, 2008

If fear of being on the list protects any children from being harmed it is worth it. The state needs to keep the list.

Other crimes | 8:00 a.m. May 5, 2008

How about the other convicted criminals out there? Why aren't the theives & murderers on the list? Wouldn't it be helpful to know if there was someone caught multiple time breaking into houses? If there is no risk to re-offend, if prisons are there to rehabilitate instead of punish then once the debt is paid they shouldn't continue to be punished for something done 15 years ago.

Re: Always Keep Them on the List | 8:09 a.m. May 5, 2008

I understand your desire to know who lives by you, however, if the individual is still a concern or a risk to the community, shouldn't they still be on probation and under court ordered therapy, counseling, and kept under the scrutiny of Adult Probation and Parole as well as published on the list? If they have modified their behavior and the state no longer deems it necessary for them to be on parole, then they should not need to register, give them an opportunity to start over. If there is a list for this crime, why not have one for drunk drivers, because everybody believes they can never change and we all want to know if a loose cannon lives in our neighborhood, never mind if heï¿½s been sober for the last 5 years, another 5 would be just punishment.

Instereo | 8:19 a.m. May 5, 2008

As terrible crime as sex abuse is, I don't think it should be an excuse to suspend the due process rights of the constitution. If we start with one group, who's to stay another group won't become such a problem that we take their constitutional rights away as well. The public may have strong feelings about it but are the results of the polls caused from the questions asked, the way they are asked, or because other questions were not asked. Someone like Shutliff should know that his duty is to uphold the constitution and the rights of all citizens. It appears he's pandoring to popular opinion.

Anonymous | 8:37 a.m. May 5, 2008

@cry me a river: If it's already publicly available information, then why do we need a separate registry for sex offenders?

Also, sex offender registration now involves the offender having to list nicknames, his email addresses, current address, make/model/color of car owned, and possibly place of employment (can't recall on that one, but i know they were pushing it)...etc. This is, for the most part, not publicly available info, and what of that is public requires a fair bit of digging.

This is innately different from what any other criminal is required to do after they've completed their sentence, and why it is at risk to be deemed unconstitutional.

Even a murderer who's paroled doesn't have to do this. Nor a domestic abuser. Nor a drunk driver. And those last two are statistically more likely to reoffend than are sexual abusers.

Amazing | 8:48 a.m. May 5, 2008

I'm always interested to see the response some articles receive. For whatever reason, some groups unite and respond in higher numbers, such as is happening here. I would be interested to know how many of you who are against the sex offenders registry are actual sex offenders. I'm guessing the majority. What's the matter? Have they touched a nerve?

Rights... | 8:56 a.m. May 5, 2008

Any educated person understands that it is not the person(s) on the list in which we need to be concerned about, it is the strange uncle, cousin or friend. The registry prays on societies fears and corrections is (believe it or not) a big business. Give those who deserve a second chance, otherwise they will be pushed into a corner. That is were they will become dangerous.

Jim | 9:09 a.m. May 5, 2008

"Sex offender" is so general that it's almost meaningless. A person who makes a mistake like sharing nude photos shouldn't be labeled for life with the same label as a serial rapist.
I know that many parents disagree and want all of them labeled the same so that they can somehow feel safer, but it puzzles me.

Let the criminals do their time and be done with it.

The guy who murdered my brother years ago probably has an easy life compared to some of these "sex offenders" whose crimes would have gone unpunished 100 years ago.

WatchDog | 9:19 a.m. May 5, 2008

Other than the requirement to list a present address and such, this is really a feel good effort, in my opinion.

All our criminal records are ALREADY public records. I submit that ALL these public records should be listed in a readily available public database, and we need to stop discriminating against these offenders any more than any other criminal with a conviction. ALL penalities for criminal actions should require keeping the DB up-to-date with the criminal's present address and if they are unwilling to keep the DB up-to-date, then they shouldn't get released till they do agree to this condition.

The public has the right to know and to have easy access to this already public information, and if that makes life difficult for the convicted, then my suggestion is for them to consider not doing the crime in the first place.

After all, one of the reasons we jail people is to protect the public.

Jean Val Jean | 9:33 a.m. May 5, 2008

Being on the sex offender list means you can't go anywhere near kids including parks, schools, public swimming pools, Lagoon, etc. You also can't leave the state without approval. If the city builds a greenbelt or park near your home you are forced to move. You can never pick your own kids up at school or go to their soccer games.

That is fine if you are a child predator but most sex offenders did something stupid while they were young like email pictures to each other or date a 16 year old Junior when you are an 18 year old senior.

45 years later you are not allowed to go to your grandchildrens school plays. How fair is that?

jr | 9:37 a.m. May 5, 2008

there are too many unanswered and incorrect records and a true sex offender needs to stay but too many are not real sex offenders and to label them for life is criminal in itself. My daugher was a victim of a sex offender and he is paying his dues but should it be for life and yes too many of them are relatives not strangers. Need to clean up the list and identify properly a real sex offender not a teenager finding out about life. Take the poligs and put them on the list

BT | 9:42 a.m. May 5, 2008

The recidivism rate for child sex predators is astronomically higher than for other violent crimes, such as murder. While I agree that some offenses (like the nude photo sharing, and minor-to-minor consensual sex) should be categorized and listed differently, and perhaps removed from the registry after a time, there is simply no room for leeway when we are talking about grown adults preying on small children.

Re: Amazing | 9:46 a.m. May 5, 2008

I'm always interested in seeing how many people are willing to suspend the Constitution and principles of basic fairness for people they don't like.

I'm not a sex offender; indeed, I've never even been arrested, let alone convicted of a crime.

But when one considers that even peeing unintentionally in front of a kid (Lewdness in presence of a child) could land you on the list, those of us who understand how easily the government can abuse its power get a little nervous.

Your argument is similiar to the one used by supporters of the War on (some icky) Drugs: Why do you care if the police cut legal corners on investigations? You got something to hide?

For that matter, why do you care if the police follow the Fourth Amendment? After all, only criminals have something to hide.

Re: Amazing | 9:51 a.m. May 5, 2008

No, we are not all Sex Offenders, as I'm confident you are not either, yet you feel an urge to contribute to the forum. I suspect that like you I have strong feelings about this particular topic, and thus the contribution. I do know some registered offenders, and all should NOT be painted with the same stereotype. Many that are still a threat to the community should be incarcerated, monitored, provided treatment, and even placed upon the list; when they are released into the community. But when they have completed all that has been asked of them, and they have done all within their power to re-establish their credibility, and Adult Probation and Parole feel the risk to the community has been eliminated and they declare that the terms of probation has been satisfied, do they not deserve a fresh start with all of the protections of the constitution.

Public Opinion -vs- Rights | 10:17 a.m. May 5, 2008

Iï¿½m concerned about why Shurtleff is so convinced that he must be doing right simply because he has validation. Frankly I was surprised that the numbers werenï¿½t higher, based upon the feedback from my neighbors.

It is easy to get real emotional about sex in Utah, especially sex in Utah County. Me thinks they protest just a little to muchly.

My point is that just because a majority of people in Utah County go to church on Sunday Morning for 3 hours doesnï¿½t mean that we should create a law that all churches need to adopt the 3 hour block.

Most of the rights declared in the constitution are to protect an individualï¿½s rights. Laws are created to limit the actions of an individual and protect the masses. The real trick is to create a balance between the two, and when a law compromises the rights guaranteed in the constitution, then that law needs to be adjusted.

The registry is currently a law that has been passed by the legislature, and now the judiciary is weighing that law to see if it is constitutional.

protect the constituiton | 10:17 a.m. May 5, 2008

To BT. The recividism rate for SO's is 4% according to the US department of justice. Lower than any other felony in the United States. Before you go stating 'facts', do your research.
There was a once a man who believed and promoted that the public opinion ruled over all else. No constitution necessary. That public safety was more important than civil rights. He started a registry first in the name of public safety. Its called the Positivist theory. Know you history people! His name- Adolf Hitler.
The registry violates: ex-post factor, right to privacy, compact clause, due-process,cruel and unusual punishment,double jeopardy.
Sex crime have not decreased at all since these laws have been introduced. Let have a Dr.Phil moment. How that workin for ya?!

What about the Constitution? | 10:22 a.m. May 5, 2008

As Benjamin Franklin stated, "A society that will give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". And Thomas Jefferson stated, "Those who would trade safety for Freedom deserve neither!"

the Founding Fathers . . . | 10:47 a.m. May 5, 2008

. . . would have executed these animals. If you want to handle it with 1776 sensibiliteis it is fine with the rest of us.

JWK | 11:03 a.m. May 5, 2008

If you want to track anyone that is a danger to children, or others for that matter, then why not have registries for murders, people with multiple DUIs, drug dealers, and so many others.

As far as the person who said that the LDS are not being Christian, well I think that just as many of the 54% are not LDS as are so get off it.

Momofsix | 11:32 a.m. May 5, 2008

Being a registered sex offender affects where you are allowed to live and your ability to get a decent job. How about the 19 year old who had sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend and now is married to her with 3 kids and isnï¿½t allowed to pick up his own kids from school? Our system is messed up and until it happens to you, most people in our nation are turning a blind eye to it. No I am not a sex offender and I have 6 children who I do everything I can to protect. But what about the Dad of 3 kids that canï¿½t even go see his childï¿½s 3rd grade play? This sex registry system needs some major reform, and we as citizens need to stand up and say enough is enough. Only true sexual predators should be on that list. Now the government is demanding passwords and all kinds of information that a person should have a right to keep confidential. But most people argue that sex offenders have no rights for the rest of their lives? Is that fair?

On the list... | 11:45 a.m. May 5, 2008

I for one am an Offender and will contribute to this. I agree that if you have one registry, you should have one for all. I also agree with the implememtation of a federal list that will break down offenders into high, medium, and low risk. THIS is the way to keep the public better informed; not leaving someone on there that has 'paid his/her debt to society' and is living as he/she should (as i have done and currently doing). As it stands right now, Utah lumps them all together leaving the public to wonder just at what risk is this person to society. Most of those that are at a higher risk typically are on a 'lifetime' probation agreement and are under the supervision of AP&P. Also, those of us that are not on probation or parole can visit parks, swimming pools, schools, etc. IF we have a legitimate reason to be there. Keeping the public better informed does not mean keeping them on the list longer, but actually informing the public of the status of that person, not just where he/she lives and what they drive. And a new rule will also publish 'private' records....

On the list....cont. | 11:47 a.m. May 5, 2008

....such as vehicle registration information, not just the make/model/color of the vehicle the person drives. This will now include license plate numbers to those vehicles.

Mom of six | 11:54 a.m. May 5, 2008

Mr. Shurtleff, until you fix the registry to only contain people who are truly a threat to our communities, I will not support this violation of peopleï¿½s constitutional rights. Even people who were only accused of a sex crime and were never convicted are forced to be on that registry. What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I donï¿½t feel any safer with a registry of people who might be a threat to my family and might not. Get the people off the registry that donï¿½t belong there or you are not doing your job.

m | 11:54 a.m. May 5, 2008

I believe there should be some consideration given to those who have committed a "lessor" crime (like teenagers having consentual sex). I think they should have their day in court, however I also feel they should have a Psychologist/Psychiatrist (or some other clinically licensed provider) vouch for their ability to not re-affend.

totally fair | 11:59 a.m. May 5, 2008

Keep the 19 yr old who had sex with a 15 yr old away from the school.

When is he going to get it in his mind to have sex with another 15 yr old?

An adult who has sex with a 15 yr old IS a true sexual predator.

Myth vs. Reality | 12:15 p.m. May 5, 2008

Most people are not aware that the rationale for the registry is based on myths rather than facts; myths that have been promulgated by vote-hungry politicians and by ratings-hungry media. The first myth is that sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism. The reality is that they have a lower re-offense rate than any other criminal except murderers. The second myth is that the greatest threat to children is from the stranger lurking in the bushes. The reality is that 90% of sex offenses are committed by a family member or close family friend. With that in mind, the registry does nothing to protect anyone; instead it gives people a false sense of security, and they end up closing their eyes to the greater danger, which is their own family and circle of friends.

You are accused | 12:20 p.m. May 5, 2008

Then you are prosecuted
You did nothing and your name is now on the list
Quite clear you people know nothing about the Judicial
The Judicial Commission refuses to act against Bad Judges

To Momofsix | 12:25 p.m. May 5, 2008

I agree with you 100%. And to many of the other posters. I suspect that a lot of us who have posted here are not on the list, and are not likely to be. I checked the post on the recidivism rate - he is right, to a point. A predator will re-offend within a year; 2 if he (or she) is trying REALLY hard. The stats I read show anyone who has been clean for 2 years has about a 7% risk; 3 years and it cuts in half. After 5 years being listed the State should consider themselves well protected.
And that is really the AG's point. This has much more to do with the State's liability to be sued than to protect any neighbor. I'm no authority on the Constitution, but isn't it to protect the people, not the Government? The State's concern is making the distinction between the predator and the average idiot that did something stupid. They don't want to take that responsibility. The bigger concern are the people who are not on the list - but will be.
Don't depend on the Government to protect you from your relatives and neighbors.

Did you see? | 12:30 p.m. May 5, 2008

60 minitutes last night
Men servred 27 years behind bars because of a bad prosecutor ( Texas )
How many Girls have been caught telling fibs?
Utah is a sick State too
Box Elder County

Marysueintx | 12:38 p.m. May 5, 2008

No-Risk and Lo-Risk offenders should be taken off the list! The registry is OVERBLOWN with many who should not be there in the first place. Our children are LESS safe as the really dangerous ones slip through the cracks. The lives of many, and their families, have been devastated due to "feel good" laws which protect no-one. Most politicians do not even know that facts! Millions of tax payer dollars are wasted each year prosecuting, monotoring, and incarcerating individuals for "petty" sex crimes. Stop wasting our money and ruining lives. Restore the registry to its original intent: a tool for law enforcement to keep track of those who are really dangerous. God help America!

Re: Lynn H in Tennessee | 12:50 p.m. May 5, 2008

"85-90% of sex crimes are committed by family or friends, NOT strangers!"

And many of those "friends" were once strangers who first created friends in order to groom them to be future victims.

Like alcoholics, it's nearly impossible to CURE a sex offender. The vast majority of sex offenders are opportunists. If another opportunity presents itself, they are nearly powerless to stop themselves from abusing again.

Re: Did you see? | 12:56 p.m. May 5, 2008

People who have been convicted of a crime, but are later proved innocent, should have their records cleared, including listings on sex offender registries.

That's true of any crime, but it's not a valid reason to eliminate sex offender registries.

JE | 1:05 p.m. May 5, 2008

To totally fair: A 19 year old who has sex with a willing 15 year old is a true sexual predator? So our grandfathers who dated and married our grandmothers with similiar age differences would be sexual predators today? And of course the 40+ year old man who has sex with an 18 -19 year old is not a predator at all? If there is a consensual relationship within a reasonable age range it should not be considered dangerous enough to register. I would worry a lot more about my 18 year old daughter being with a 40 year old man than my 15 year old daughter with a 19 year old. I have three daughters and I know that at 13, 14, 15, and 16 they would do anything to get a college age man's attention. These guys do not deserve to be labeled for the rest of their lives. And I don't think a 19 year old will continue to be interested in 15 year olds. But at 19, 15 is not a huge age difference.

Constitution Fan | 1:17 p.m. May 5, 2008

Amazing @8:48 Bet you are wrong on the number of responders being sex offenders. Nearly every response has talked of the constitutionality of the law not the emotion of the crime. I too believe the law is being used on a way it was not intended. I was intended to be used against child sexual predators. For my humble opinion, I believe that the list should only contain names, pictures and home addresses of those incarcerated, on probation or on parole are who have been convicted as predators. No other information is on the federal list or on many other states list. Common sense should prevail and a court petition should be available to offenders to remove their info post time served. Just a old lady who believes in the USA Constitution.

JA | 1:29 p.m. May 5, 2008

I agree with JE. technically speaking a man who is 18 years old and 1 day who has consensual sex with a girl 17 years and 364 days old has committed statutory rape. Lets be realistic. There are actual criminals and then there are just those that make mistakes or actually think they are in love. Lets not lump them all together

let's do be realistic | 2:19 p.m. May 5, 2008

the point of statutory rape laws is that young teens are not mature enough to make a rational decision (no matter what they, or even their parents, may think) to engage in sexual activity, in other words, even if they think it is OK society recognizes that it is not and places them off limits.

The problem is not poor 19 yr old men trapped by 15 yr old girls. They are either stupid or grossly irresponsible and deserve whatever they get (and more)

The problem is that the laws are not applied to younger males. The 15 yr old girl is just as pregnant, if her partner is 15 or 19 or 39. Society has a strong interest in eliminating unmarried teen pregnancy.

Rather than pity the 19 yr old because the 15 yr old boy gets off scot free throw the 15 yr olds into bootcamp until the are adults if they can't behave responsibly.

I realize many of you will squeal about boys will be boys but that is because your values are gutted by the coarse society we live in.

Extra-martial sex carries a huge social cost and society isn't addressing it responsibly.

Cynthia | 3:30 p.m. May 5, 2008

I am the wife of a registered sex offender. I understand the need for parents to protect their children as I have three. The problem is that my husband is not a threat to society so how is it helping society to have him on the list? I understand paying for the crime that he committed and he has so can't he be free? What is interesting is that my husband was never convicted and had his indictment and plea of guilt removed. The weird thing is that he is still required to register. What kind of justice is that? Why are drunk drivers not on a list? What if my child is out riding her bike and she gets run over because someone with a DUI lives next door? What is even more frustrating about the list is that most sexual abuse is committed by a family member. How does the list help that situation? Please people, let's think this through.

Lynn H in Tennessee | 3:33 p.m. May 5, 2008

How many of you readers have sexually touched a teen under 18, when you yourself were young, then gone on to live a normal life. You are an incurable sex offender according to some. You just didn't get caught. Of curse there's a cure. Some are just young and dumb.

False Security | 3:55 p.m. May 5, 2008

This list will not protect you.

If sex offenders are likely to act again, they should be in jail, not on a list.

And I would guess the list is only convicted sex offenders, which is of course an incomplete list.

Annoyed | 5:15 p.m. May 5, 2008

I don't think the list is completely useless, but I do think there needs to be some reform. Those who have paid their debt to society should be allowed to have their names removed. Those who continue to offend, shouldn't be on the streets anyway. Many people feel safer at night because they know the people in their neighborhoods on that list, but they don't always know the circumstances. In some situations, both parties are equally at fault in the sex act. Not just the one over 18. I know some people who are on the list and shouldn't be. The one's I have met who are on there for valid reasons still reside in the State prison, as they should. But until there is reform on this registry, it continues to be somewhat useless. If you want to keep your kids safe, try watching them. Talk to them and always know where they are going and who they are with. Take some responsibility as a parent as well. Some of the kids out there wouldn't get in the situation if parents would intervene once in a while.

A wife | 6:13 p.m. May 5, 2008

My husband is on the registry for an offense he did not commit. At our attorney's recommendation, he accepted a plea bargain rather than risk being convicted of a 1st degree felony and being imprisoned for many years. We'd like to take this case to actual trial, but we'd have the same "hanging judge" who wouldn't listen before, so it's pointless to try. He served 6 months in jail, and will be on probation for 5 years and the Registry for 15 years. Our cars, including mine which he never drives, are listed with license plate numbers, on the Registry, so that affects my freedom. I agree with many posters who've said there should be some kind of categorization on the registry, rather than lumping minor offenses with serial rapists. Once his probation and counseling are completed, I believe his name should be removed from the Registry, but it will not be. We've been denied life insurance because of his record. It costs us $100 a year to be on the Registry. His time has been served, but the sentence will never end.

To the Legislators: | 6:30 p.m. May 5, 2008

Be careful of the laws you make and pass. Someday YOU might have to suffer the results of your lawmaking efforts. I have followed the legislation the past 2 years, and some of the sex offense related laws are ridiculous. Offenders now have to register twice a year. OK, they already have to check in with their PO each month. How does this one help? Other laws are so restrictive as to make simple daily living so difficult and frustrating that some people just give up. And what about ex post facto? New laws should not apply to people who have already been convicted. To do so is a form of conviction without trial. I'm certainly not opposed to protecting the public from sex offenders. But the Registry does not serve that purpose. The people on it already have someone looking over their shoulders. It's the offender who is a friend or family member NOT on the Registry that should be feared. In some neighborhoods, people have used the Registry to persecute their neighbors. They should know that THEY are breaking the law by doing so, as stated right on the Registry website. For personal information only.

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.