Deseret News | Reader comments: Keep sex-offender registry

Reader comments
Keep sex-offender registry

jon | 4:41 a.m. May 7, 2008

These people who choose, to literaly destroy the life of an innocent victim, (child or adult). Don't pay even close enough to what they should. Do the research of the lifetime effects it has on these victims. They suffer from extreme deppresion, that often ends in suicide. They become alcoholics and drug abussers and in turn they also carry on the great pedophile tradition themselves. How is this ever going to stop unless we display to the world these life destroying people who cannot control their sick and perverted cravings. I have seven children and I personaly will do whatever I have to to protect them.keep this registry going and stay on top of it.This world isn't getting any better so I excpect alot more names to be added soon,

BBKing | 9:08 a.m. May 7, 2008

I have a neighbor on the registry. He was 21, dating a 17 year old. They had relations, the 17 year old girls parents learned of this, turned him in and now he is on the registry for life.

I agree that we keep the registry but in a case like his, two young adults making dumb decisions - he needs to be treated differently than a 55 year old preying on 9 year olds. In Utah you are old enough to marry at 17.

A one size fits all approach is rarely the solution. And for our neighborhood it is not the best solution. When I first learned of his being on the registry I immediately thought of the safety of our neighbors little girls (under age 10). I demanded action. When I learned of the details from my LDS Bishop I again demanded action. This time for the State to be more thoughtful in how it handles cases like this.

Maybe on the registry it is noted that he was 21 dating a 17 year old. And if he has no further brushes with the law for 10-20 years he comes off.

He is not a threat.

uncannygunman | 9:20 a.m. May 7, 2008

Maybe we should expand the registry to include any person that is statistically more likely to commit sex crimes. Stereotypicallly speaking, that might include church and youth group leaders, teachers, and others that work with kids. It's all to protect the kids, right?

Comments continue below

Jim | 9:20 a.m. May 7, 2008

Fortunately, in Utah I don't think young men who have minor girlfriends are placed on the list if there was less than a ten year age difference. That is not the case in most states. 19 year olds are being charged with rape and sent to prison and made to register for the rest of their lives because they had a minor girlfriend. This is sad and a waste of resources.

Darin | 9:43 a.m. May 7, 2008

What a bunch of rubbish! This opinion sounds like is was written on the fly - like, oops! we forgot to put something in that space.

As justification for keeping the registry, DN offers ONE example - the rape of a child. That person should be justly punished, no doubt. But is a registry needed to do that? What about the guy caught peeing on the roadside - should he really be on a list for life?

Then you state that arguments over the years have been made that sex-offenders have been singled out -- why not a registry for other criminals that are, perhaps, deemed even more dangerous? Yes, this is correct, the question has been asked, but you don't even attempt a reply. It's a valid question; answer it if you want to support your argument.

Finally, you promote the big lie that we are safer for the registry, calling the registry a tool that helps parents. In your archives can you find even one story as evidence that this is true? Now go back to your archives and look for stories as evidence that this "tool" is really harmful - and you will find plenty.

Opening Sentence | 10:16 a.m. May 7, 2008

The opening sentence says it all. This only thing a list can accomplish is to stigmatize a group of people. If you want them shamed for life, good for you. Mission acccomplished.

But never pretend that this list in any way PROTECTS the public. It does not and never will.

Aren't We Responsible? | 10:27 a.m. May 7, 2008

At what point do we as parents have to suck it up and be a responsible adult? I see little kids playing unattended all the time. At the skate park in Herriman I see mothers drop off their teenage daughters and friends and these girls have less clothes on the the working girls on west 2nd south.

There are at least 3 sex offenders in the area on the registery. What good does it do when the parents take no responsibility to watch their kids. We can not expect just because an individual is on the registry that we can let our kids run nilly willy all over the place unattended.

I believe that the sex offender registry is just a false sense of security. Many are on there for dumb reasons and they shouldn't be there.

Anonymous | 12:13 p.m. May 7, 2008

So according to the statistics in the article, we're stigmatizing and humiliating 19 people are aren't going to re-offend just to make sure we stigmatize, humiliate and publicize the one who will.

So why do I get the feeling Nathaniel Hawthorne would simply have Hester Pryne's name put on the registry if he were to write the Scarlet Letter today?

Steve | 12:56 p.m. May 7, 2008

The list only protects children in so far as you keep them away from those on the list... but really, it doesn't prevent future crimes. Those on the list can still commit them, the list doesn't stop them.

And such lists should never be for a lifetime as they are in many states, they should have a limit like 10 years (as it does here in Utah). A person should have a point at which their debt to society ends after their crime, it shouldn't be a perpetual ongoing thing if you've already completed your sentence.

Parents, if I were you I'd be much more worried about the people who AREN'T on the list than those who are... the vast majority (almost all) of sex crimes commited against children are done by a loved one or someone they know, not the stranger down the street who's a registered offender.

Steve - Re: Jim | 1:06 p.m. May 7, 2008

You're mistaken about the legal/allowed age gap, it's not 10 years... it's not legal for a 16 or 17 year-old to have sexual relations with someone who is 26 or 27. If I'm not mistaken, someone under 18 can only have sex with someone within 2 years of their age (and I think that other person must be under 18 themselves, so that excludes a 19 year-old).

Do I agree with these laws? No, not really. I'm with BBKing who posted above, that 21 y/o they know doesn't sound like a threat to me either... to me it sounds like those two were in a consenting relationship.

I do agree with you that in many cases this is a waste of our resources and the legal system's time. If someone is truly dangerous and a threat, who actually NEED monitoring, then why are they out in public to begin with? Other than those type, there are many people on these lists who don't need to be.

Concerned | 1:20 p.m. May 7, 2008

There needs to be an appeals process so that youthful offenders who have had consentual sex or picture swapping etc do not get labeled for life.

We need to through out the authorities who act in our behalf and have no common sense.

Instereo | 2:22 p.m. May 7, 2008

The sex offender list does many things. 1. it makes a person pay twice for his crime. Once by they state, with it's rules, proceedures, and penalties and then again by the community with their predjuice, ignorance, and hate without restraint. 2. It takes away a persons rights to due process (After they have paid for the crime) because they are left to the mercy of the public. And 3. It's a return to the days of Salem Witch Trails when accusations could get you prosecuted in a situation of he said she said and little way for the innocent to defend themselves because of the hype people give to this type of offence.

I think sexual abuse, rape, etc. is a terrible thing and criminals should pay for their crime but they shouldn't have to pay twice. Murder is much worse as a crime and murders don't have to pay twice. There are also other crimes that leave permant scars and those offenders don't have to pay twice either. It's time for people to think rationally and provide money for programs to help victoms and offenders instead of just listing those to blame.

Rupert | 3:13 p.m. May 7, 2008

I believe that the registry serves its purpose, but that it should be very limited in its scope...for instance, this whole deal with the kids sharing pictures of themselves on their cell phones...while this is stupid, and could lead to unintended consequences, is it really worth branding a 14 year old for life as a sex offender (especially since these pictures were shared with other "kids" and under Utah law, you cannot be both the victim and the perpetrator...)?
I think that the better way is to see if a person rehabilitates, but if they are done with the "debt to society" then they should be "done"...not just "mostly done" and pay for their crime for the rest of their life...unless you can make a successful argument for making sex crimes "life imprisonment" crimes...
After all, if a murderer is let out, we don't have a "murderer registry" so we can track all murderers...we don't have a "drug user" registry for all the drug users, we don't have a "burglary or robbery" registry...
These other crimes have destroyed lives, they have made victims, they have impacted society is terrible ways...really not much different than sex offenders.

Anonymous | 7:51 p.m. May 7, 2008

Convicted sex offenders face a life of stigma in Utah...unless they're FLDS. Then they are defended as victims of persecution. I've never witnessed such an abrupt hypocrisy in a place this conservative law - n - order wholesome hang 'em high before.

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.