Reader comments
Utah sex-registry law challenged
62 comments | Read story
phil | 5:05 a.m. July 1, 2008
yes florida does also have a similar law. but they only ask for scren names and
email. Not passwords. I would have to agree about the password issue cause
then anyone can sign on and changes things or even plant things. Not that
anyone in law enforcement never has planted anything.
No common sense? Then go | 6:58 a.m. July 1, 2008
Given that a 12 year old kid was put on the Utah registry for relations with a
13 year old girl (sex with a minor was the charge and given that kids were
threatened to be put on the registry if they didn't plead to a lesser
charge, this for passing around cell phone pictures of themselves with each
other I'll say good riddens to the registry if it goes away.
If the people in charge of enforcing a law don't apply common sense, then the law needs to go.
If the people in charge of enforcing a law don't apply common sense, then the law needs to go.
If you play, You pay... | 7:09 a.m. July 1, 2008
My kids are still alive and untouched thanks to the fantastic job our law
enforcement does to protect my children's rights. Let face it, if a person
wrongfully touches, or stalks, my child and the law does nothing about it then I
will. Also, to have to prove who you are writing to or otherwise making contacts
with because you were "convicted" for this in the past is a small
price to pay for what you did. I support our enforcement agents.
Comments continue below
Just keep them in jail | 7:12 a.m. July 1, 2008
They might as well just keep them in jail because these sex offenders are
obviously not finished serving their time. If they are this dangerous, they
should not be part of society but should be stamping license plates.
Pete | 7:23 a.m. July 1, 2008
This assumption by Bird that Mr. Doe will commit more crimes and that he wants
to protect children is not valid. He would next assume that his neighbors are
criminals and would want to see what's on their computers. As a sex
offender Mr. Doe will be monitored anyway. Then, if and only if he commits
another crime pursue the invasion of his private files not before. If you want
to assume something, assume that now he has been punished and paid his debt to
society he will never commit another crime. Innocent until proven guilty
lkf | 7:24 a.m. July 1, 2008
Despite what they say about having to get warrants, the password requirement
gives law enforcement carte blanche to conduct warrantless searches, just like
giving them the key to your house and then expecting them not to use it. If
they can do it, they will, unless the courts stop them.
Chuckles55 | 7:37 a.m. July 1, 2008
Simple thing to change one's screen name and password. In my mind,
it's probably better to prohibit them from registering with any site where
children go to chat and/or leave personal information - just like prohibiting
them from going to playgrounds where children play. Then, when one gets caught
doing this, lower the boom big time.
sarah jane | 7:43 a.m. July 1, 2008
When an individual makes a decision to commit sexual abuse, they lose their
rights and should be subject to any and all laws. There is nothing that is too
severe for such crimes.
Liz | 7:44 a.m. July 1, 2008
You harmed another child or adult. Why are you worried about your harm? Think
of what you did to others. Their life will be forever changed, and yours will
to as a sex offender. Keep the sex offender registery!
Sammy | 7:55 a.m. July 1, 2008
Irrepairable harm? If the clown is doing something serious enough to go to jail
then my guess he has done irrepairable harm to someone else.
He is a loser and that is why we have the law. We want to keep our kids away from him. Geez!!!
He is a loser and that is why we have the law. We want to keep our kids away from him. Geez!!!
My opinion | 7:56 a.m. July 1, 2008
Well I don't think any pedophile or sex offender should be allowed on any
kind of website like Myspace or facebook where kids or anybody go on where there
are pictures posted. You know it's not for "social" reasons or to
meet new friends, it's to prowel. So hey I think it's OK to have a law
like that in place and it isn't really unconstitutional at all cause these
people take away the rights of their victims everytime they sexually assault
someone. So why is it everyone is concerned about the sex offender but not about
the rights of those they offend. Makes no sense to me. So I think the Federal
Judge isn't thinking right.
Mahershalalhashbaz | 8:07 a.m. July 1, 2008
I disagree strongly with the Supreme Court that sex offenders cannot recieve
capital punishment. Sex offenders like this do not belong on this planet, let
alone on myspace! This man deserves the death penalty. And so does the judge
and lawyers who are trying to help him!
Camille | 8:07 a.m. July 1, 2008
I totally agree with Chuckles55 comment at 7:37am. No sex offender should be on
any chat site where kids have their pictures or any kind of info about
themselves. And I also am in agreement with Liz who commented at 7:44am. They
weren't giving any care for the person, especially the child, when they
harmed them. They could have cared less about the way their victim's lives
and the lives of the families of those they abused will change cause of their
senseless act. So the sex registry needs to stay and laws need to enforced to
protect. Law enforcement need to also think of the rights of the victims, the
perpetrators lost their rights when they did the crime!
MySpace | 8:21 a.m. July 1, 2008
.... Maybe just require a link in their "My Space" profile that takes
people directly to the offenders SONAR registry, they get to socialize... and
the people get to know the danger they socailize with :)
common sense | 8:21 a.m. July 1, 2008
There are MORE sexual preditors online now than every before. If you have been
convicted of a sex crime, your name should be there permanantly!!! Most of the
time, sex offenders DO commit more offenses. I beleive its a GOOD LAW!!! You
notice his NAME wasnt used,, why not? He isnt a minor!
uncannygunman | 8:43 a.m. July 1, 2008
I agree with JKTIJ: If they're dangerous enough to continue to hassle,
they're dangerous enough to be in jail. If they've served their time,
let'm be.
Also, criminal records are public records. I don't think I would have a problem with a government or private company trying to keep track of these people and post their info (subject to liability for errors). My objection is to criminalizing the individuals for failing to do this work for the state by registering.
Also, criminal records are public records. I don't think I would have a problem with a government or private company trying to keep track of these people and post their info (subject to liability for errors). My objection is to criminalizing the individuals for failing to do this work for the state by registering.
Not so common | 8:54 a.m. July 1, 2008
Common Sense: do you have a link to your source? If you do any research at all
you will see that there is actually a fairly low rate of repeat sex offenders.
Mahershalalhashbaz: What do you know about this particular case? All we know is that he was in the Air Force and had sex with a minor, how do we know he wasn't some 18 year old kid who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend? (Although the way it was worded implies otherwise). My point is that everyone sees the words "Sex offender" and they want maximum punishment without understanding what the case actually was.
The "Oh no, think of the children" meme is getting tiresome. If you are worried about your kids on myspace, teach them to think about what they are doing while on myspace. It isn't the governments job to take care of our children.
Mahershalalhashbaz: What do you know about this particular case? All we know is that he was in the Air Force and had sex with a minor, how do we know he wasn't some 18 year old kid who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend? (Although the way it was worded implies otherwise). My point is that everyone sees the words "Sex offender" and they want maximum punishment without understanding what the case actually was.
The "Oh no, think of the children" meme is getting tiresome. If you are worried about your kids on myspace, teach them to think about what they are doing while on myspace. It isn't the governments job to take care of our children.
re: common sense 8:21 a.m. | 8:58 a.m. July 1, 2008
You are wrong! Sex offenders have one of the lowest re-offense rates of any
type of criminal. Most of them do NOT commit new offenses once they have served
their time. And any law that gives police tacit approval to conduct warrantless
searches is NOT a good law.
cool1krm | 9:01 a.m. July 1, 2008
I agree if you are convicted of hurting ANY child physically,emotionally,and or
mentally in a sexual manner your rights should be stripped! think about it
..what have these offenders stripped from our children for the REST of their
lifes! They dont even need computers!. My problem is jail, is not the
answer..why should our tax dollars feed,cloth,educate these people when we as
law bidding citizens struggle everyday to provide neccesities! Stick them on and
dessereted island and they can have at each other!!!! The offenders deserve no
rights!!!!
Semper Fi | 9:04 a.m. July 1, 2008
The recidivism rate for Sex offenders is one half of one percent. Compare this
to the recidivism rate of all other offenders at between 87 and 95 percent. In
case you don't want to do the math that means that out of two hundred
sex-offenders, one will commit another offense, whereas out of all other
offenders 180 will recommit. As we continue to get in a flurry against
"sex-offenders" it may be wiser to stop the witch hunt and allow all
people their Constitutional rights. But for the grace of God goes nearly every
human because if you think (under Utah law sodomy means oral sex!) that you are
innocent of anything and everything under these laws you are likely mistaken
(kudos to those who are without sin). Additionally and most frighteningly--it
takes nothing but a rumor to set you up for accusations, charges and more for
sex crimes. Those who think our system is just and that all who are charged and
even sentenced are actually guilty are utterly and completely wrong. Stop the
witch hunt and stop singling out a group of people because you think that
"using common sense" justifies that their Constitutional rights be
violated.
Justice | 9:13 a.m. July 1, 2008
These people have served their time and paid the punishment for their offenses.
LET THEM MOVE ON. If they are released from prison then it means that the
justice system believes that they are okay again, so should we. A person should
not have to suffer punishment for the remainder of his life for something he has
already served time for and is trying to get beyond. I don't think we
should monitor them at all, let alone infringe on their privacy by demanding
their passwords.
cool1krm | 9:12 a.m. July 1, 2008
Do it once get stuck on a desserted island with other offenders!! have at each
other,, Seriosly do parents need to take things into there own hands? tax
dollars should not feed,cloth,educate, or defend such disgusting individuals!
They should have NO rights for taking a lifetime from a child !
What is the limit? | 9:18 a.m. July 1, 2008
From what I've read in most of these posts, now I know why Utah is the last
state I'd want to be drug into court being accused of a sexual offense I
didn't commit.
I know a person in Utah who was interrogated by the police for 5 hours and forced to confess to something he didn't do. Yet, the evidence of that coerced confession was admitted. His attorney told him that if he was in any other state he had a strong chance of winning; but in Utah County, and in Utah, he didn't have a chance, that he should plea bargin. He did and now he's in prison. After reviewing the case, it would be obvious to any lay person that a miscarriage of justice has occured. And I don't think his is an isolated case. Suffice it to say, that in the self-righteous state of Utah, accused sex offenders are guilty from the start and can rarely prove their innocence.
I am all for the registry. I realize that most true sex offenders are ill and addicted. But, there must be limits to what we allow our government to do. The Constitution must be our standard!
I know a person in Utah who was interrogated by the police for 5 hours and forced to confess to something he didn't do. Yet, the evidence of that coerced confession was admitted. His attorney told him that if he was in any other state he had a strong chance of winning; but in Utah County, and in Utah, he didn't have a chance, that he should plea bargin. He did and now he's in prison. After reviewing the case, it would be obvious to any lay person that a miscarriage of justice has occured. And I don't think his is an isolated case. Suffice it to say, that in the self-righteous state of Utah, accused sex offenders are guilty from the start and can rarely prove their innocence.
I am all for the registry. I realize that most true sex offenders are ill and addicted. But, there must be limits to what we allow our government to do. The Constitution must be our standard!
cool1krm | 9:20 a.m. July 1, 2008
stop singling them out? no way think about it ! just for a min ...the child
lives and relives the event over and over again, and the offender gets what ?
rewarded! (food,clothing, education, defense)and some even get out of jail.
making the child fear what? for the rest of their lives! By the way they
probably only catch the one half of one percent again----if you think they
havent re committed you are nieve!
cool1krm | 9:21 a.m. July 1, 2008
JUSTICE.... one question
DO YOU HAVE KIDS?
THINK!
DO YOU HAVE KIDS?
THINK!
cool1krm | 9:32 a.m. July 1, 2008
let me be specific Justice
If you commit it and are proven guilty without a reasonable doubt then i agree . your right there are those wrongly accussed and coherced but if they arent then they should be stripped of all rights!
and my opinion with your comment is that you dont have kids so you dont worry about the offenders do?
If you commit it and are proven guilty without a reasonable doubt then i agree . your right there are those wrongly accussed and coherced but if they arent then they should be stripped of all rights!
and my opinion with your comment is that you dont have kids so you dont worry about the offenders do?
Re: common sense | 9:31 a.m. July 1, 2008
You may have "common sense," but you obviously never learned spelling
or grammar.
Hatuletoh | 9:42 a.m. July 1, 2008
Many who have posted on this site have reframed this legal question as a
dichotomous morality issue. This is simple-minded and wrong, and it makes me
worry for the future of the Republic if that's as deep as any of its
citizens can think about an issue. As evidence, take comments like:
"there's nothing too severe for these crimes", and "law
enforcement needs to think of the rights of the victims", and of course,
the ubiquitous "kill sex offenders and their lawyers". We may well
all agree with those feelings, but that's why judges don't adjudicate
by emotion.
The court is taking up the question of whether or not it is constitutional to mandate that citizens convicted of certain crimes turn over certain pieces of personal information. The reason the court is doing this is to examine if such a law amounts to ex post facto punishment ("after the fact"), generally--but not universally--prohibited by Supreme Court precedent and the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
And that's it. This is an article about the courts and the Constitution, which are exorably tied together. So put your pitchforks and torches away, head on back to the haystacks.
The court is taking up the question of whether or not it is constitutional to mandate that citizens convicted of certain crimes turn over certain pieces of personal information. The reason the court is doing this is to examine if such a law amounts to ex post facto punishment ("after the fact"), generally--but not universally--prohibited by Supreme Court precedent and the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
And that's it. This is an article about the courts and the Constitution, which are exorably tied together. So put your pitchforks and torches away, head on back to the haystacks.
Anonymous | 9:43 a.m. July 1, 2008
How would this have caused irreparable harm? It's MySpace for
heaven's sake, which, contrary to popular belief, is not required to
sustain life on this planet. If his attorney means that it would cause
irreparable harm to his ability to stalk and abuse young children, then maybe
she's right. Seriously! If there's nothing illegal on his accounts,
than there's no problem if someone else looks at it; if there is, than it
means that more children are in danger from this pervert. And in the mean time,
he can go on there and get rid of any incriminating evidence. This is just
sick.
cool1krm | 9:49 a.m. July 1, 2008
great law but not enough! handing over passwords only makes them create 2 ,3 or
more accounts on these sites, get real.
Darin | 9:54 a.m. July 1, 2008
The sex-offender registry is a shameful violation of one of our very basic
social tenets: Once you've paid for your offense, you get a fair shake
again. Shame on the rabid bloggers here who would single out sex offenders for
life-long punishment (regardless of whatever the actual offense was).
From the moment the sex-offender registry appeared I sensed the injustice in it. We do not have registries for any other group of criminals, although we could try to justify registries for all kinds of criminals using the same arguments.
Finally, the registry helps no one. Since the registry appeared there hasn't been ONE story in the local news about someone who has been directly helped by it. Yet there are numerous stories about the harm the registry does - and not just to ex-offenders who carry the unfair punishment. The registry brings out the worst in many of us - voyeurism, suspicion, spying.
The courts would do us a big favor by striking down the registry altogether.
From the moment the sex-offender registry appeared I sensed the injustice in it. We do not have registries for any other group of criminals, although we could try to justify registries for all kinds of criminals using the same arguments.
Finally, the registry helps no one. Since the registry appeared there hasn't been ONE story in the local news about someone who has been directly helped by it. Yet there are numerous stories about the harm the registry does - and not just to ex-offenders who carry the unfair punishment. The registry brings out the worst in many of us - voyeurism, suspicion, spying.
The courts would do us a big favor by striking down the registry altogether.
6 months | 10:10 a.m. July 1, 2008
It does make sense to keep an eye on previous sex-offenders. The password thing
might be going to far. What if they were required to share the password for say
six months after they got out of jail and then they were free to change it.
Though law enforcement should still have the user name or what not so they can
still visit the page and check up on them. The six months would be to make sure
they don't go back to their old ways. Who knows how they will act once they
get opportunities that they have not had for awhile? But always have their
password...seems a little to much.
cgled58 | 10:15 a.m. July 1, 2008
Since when did our innocent missing and murdered children become secondary to
the rights of convicted predatory sex offenders? I would like to know where the
completely unfounded statistics about the recidisivm rates of known sex
offenders came from? Those are completely opposite than what has been quoted
from here. In fact, most sex offenders commit several more than what they are
reported or charged with. Most offenders have a less than 5% chance of not
re-offending. Providing his passwords to law enforcement and having his life an
open book after committing the vicious and life altering crimes should be
something he willing submits to - after all, if he is "cured" what
would he possibly have to hide. Wouldn't he have everything to gain by
proving he was indeed cured!
This will be unpopular, but... | 10:20 a.m. July 1, 2008
This will be unpopular for the witch hunt crowd, but I believe this law is
indeed unconstitutional on the grounds stated (unreasonable search and siezure).
I believe more in our constitution than I do in preventing potential mischief
on the internet.
Personally, I think the "registry" is shameful. There are people I know who are on there, one of them for sex with his separated wife, who claimed "rape" after the fact so that she could get custody of the kids. As has been pointed out there are people on there who are 19 years old, having been convicted of having sex with a 17 year old, consensual, but the father objected (understandably). This whole thing is a mess.
Personally, I think the "registry" is shameful. There are people I know who are on there, one of them for sex with his separated wife, who claimed "rape" after the fact so that she could get custody of the kids. As has been pointed out there are people on there who are 19 years old, having been convicted of having sex with a 17 year old, consensual, but the father objected (understandably). This whole thing is a mess.
What is the limit? | 10:32 a.m. July 1, 2008
re: Anonymous at 9:43 a.m. "If there's nothing illegal on his
acounts, then there's no problem if someone else looks at it".
First, now days, I trust the police about as far as I can throw them. They could care less about your rights or innocence - all they want to do is nail you. In order to bring closure to an open case, I have no doubt they'd plant false information on the website, or computer for that matter, of a registered sex offender.
Secondly, I have a request of you. Publically post here, your SSN, all your bank account information, home address, phone numbers, employer, personnal e-mail accounts and passwords. Then afterwords, tell me how you feel about that. Do you honestly think that it's sacred, that ALL of us would only use your information with integrity and good intentions in mind?
Don't you see the path this takes us down? Your first mistake is trusting the government in the first place! Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's why we have the right to bear arms. These documents are for the purpose of "potecting" is from our government.
First, now days, I trust the police about as far as I can throw them. They could care less about your rights or innocence - all they want to do is nail you. In order to bring closure to an open case, I have no doubt they'd plant false information on the website, or computer for that matter, of a registered sex offender.
Secondly, I have a request of you. Publically post here, your SSN, all your bank account information, home address, phone numbers, employer, personnal e-mail accounts and passwords. Then afterwords, tell me how you feel about that. Do you honestly think that it's sacred, that ALL of us would only use your information with integrity and good intentions in mind?
Don't you see the path this takes us down? Your first mistake is trusting the government in the first place! Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's why we have the right to bear arms. These documents are for the purpose of "potecting" is from our government.
Fredd | 11:06 a.m. July 1, 2008
Everyone is jumping to the conclusion this guy is some kind of beast. As a
retired AF guy I can tell you if he raped a child he would not have served 18
months. I don't want to try and defend him but there really is a good
chance he was with a teenage girl under 18. He may have had a secondary offense
like DUI and they found out his girlfriend was underage. Again not defending
him, but try to get a little perspective. And I disagree with the Supreme
Court. Severe crimes against children do rate the death penalty.
LARK | 11:25 a.m. July 1, 2008
Yes, the recidivism rate is very low - after a couple of years. Check the U. S.
Dept. of Justice site (like any gov. site you have to do a little searching -
but the records are there). The problem with the "throw them all in jail
for life crowd" is that they are myopic and uninformed. Very few "sex
offenders" are predators. Predators are sick and they will likely
re-offend. That's why the records show the recidivism rates plummet
drastically within a short period of time. The facts show that maybe 1% of those
convicted of a sex crime (and you REALLY don't want to be even accused in
Utah - the AG and DFCS will rip you apart - you are assumed guilty!) are
pedophiles. The rest are first time offenders that will tell you that whatever
they did was just stupid. They aren't going to re-offend. The term
"sex offender" is very, very broad and they are not all the same -
they are also not all male.
Chris Plummer | 11:44 a.m. July 1, 2008
If you've done your time in jail/prison you deserve a second chance. If it
comes to a vote thats the way I'll be voting.
Our system is clogged as it is. Witch-hunting is what this boils down to. The posters who are afraid and want more justice served once justice has already been done equate to peasants with pitchforks and torches wanting vigilante justice.
Our system is clogged as it is. Witch-hunting is what this boils down to. The posters who are afraid and want more justice served once justice has already been done equate to peasants with pitchforks and torches wanting vigilante justice.
Hypocrites! | 12:21 p.m. July 1, 2008
Go ahead and crucify everyone who is on the registry, but as most everyone here
is a Mormon, you should understand that sex crimes are forgiveable sins. The
person who served time in prison and made restitution is allowed to come back
into the church and hold a temple recommend, so why would you all try making
these peoples lives miserable even though you are passing the sacrament to them
in church?
People do deserve a second chance, not ALL sex offenders are unrehabilitatable, you just all assume they aren't and start casting stones.
People do deserve a second chance, not ALL sex offenders are unrehabilitatable, you just all assume they aren't and start casting stones.
me. | 12:23 p.m. July 1, 2008
The media has created such fear of the "sex Offender" that regardless
of the situation you are guilty before the jury convicts you. For all of you out
htere pressing for tougher laws god forbid you are ever accused or wrongfully
convicted.
Predatory? | 1:24 p.m. July 1, 2008
As some people have pointed out, not all sex offenses are predatory. A
fifteen-year-old boyfriend and girlfriend sleeping together, for example, are
sex offenders and would be listed on the registry for their whole lives. But
their offense wasn't predatory at all. When they're forty years old,
is it seriously a risk to your children to be around those people? Of course
not.
On the other hand, there are sexual predators out there. There are cases where sexual predators have been arrested, served time, been released, and done it again. The sex offender registry is meant as a compromise that lets these people not serve life sentences but still provides some protection against predators.
The problem is that the registry doesn't make this distinction and seriously harms the lives of people who've paid their debts, possibly repented, and are probably now just like you and me. So the sex offender registry needs to only apply to sexual predators.
On the other hand, there are sexual predators out there. There are cases where sexual predators have been arrested, served time, been released, and done it again. The sex offender registry is meant as a compromise that lets these people not serve life sentences but still provides some protection against predators.
The problem is that the registry doesn't make this distinction and seriously harms the lives of people who've paid their debts, possibly repented, and are probably now just like you and me. So the sex offender registry needs to only apply to sexual predators.
Aunt Jamima | 1:32 p.m. July 1, 2008
I do have kids.
cool1krm: I wouldn't allow them on myspace for anything. Even the liberal news media has come out and said that you shouldn't allow your kids on there.
I also know 5 sex offenders that have NEVER reoffended. Like Lark said, they were first time offenders and 1 was with a girl he had been set up with by her mother (he thought she was over 18).
There are many who are falsely accused. Many who just made an error in judgement. Yes, there are those who are preditors and they should be held to a 2 strike rule. But for those who are falsely accused or are on the registry for taking a leak in their own backyard, this goes too far.
If you are so worried about a sex offender "meeting" your child on myspace then maybe you ought to take some responsibility and get your child into something else rather than the internet.
I will pray for those of you who have the pitchforks and oil. What goes around comes around. None of you are dead yet. Someday, somehow this too shall touch your lives. A father, son, brother, friend. Maybe even you.
cool1krm: I wouldn't allow them on myspace for anything. Even the liberal news media has come out and said that you shouldn't allow your kids on there.
I also know 5 sex offenders that have NEVER reoffended. Like Lark said, they were first time offenders and 1 was with a girl he had been set up with by her mother (he thought she was over 18).
There are many who are falsely accused. Many who just made an error in judgement. Yes, there are those who are preditors and they should be held to a 2 strike rule. But for those who are falsely accused or are on the registry for taking a leak in their own backyard, this goes too far.
If you are so worried about a sex offender "meeting" your child on myspace then maybe you ought to take some responsibility and get your child into something else rather than the internet.
I will pray for those of you who have the pitchforks and oil. What goes around comes around. None of you are dead yet. Someday, somehow this too shall touch your lives. A father, son, brother, friend. Maybe even you.
Okay again? | 1:54 p.m. July 1, 2008
Anyone who believes that the government has any illusions that someone who has
served their time is now "okay" knows very little of correctional
facilities. The justice system is not, and has never been about rehabilitation.
Some people volunteer at prisons to create programs but the government
sentences a person to 15 years of imprisonment... not rehabilitation.
Having paid with 15 years of life doesn't necessarily translate into 15 years of penitence and reform.
That said, I do feel for those who have committed a crime and changed. I can't imagine how hard life will be for someone who has had a real change of heart but must now enter any future human relationship as a "registered sex offender."
However, I'm not sure as a society whether or not we should cater to the needs of those individuals so long as our prison system is not meant to rehabilitate, or to insure that inmates who leave are "fixed."
Having paid with 15 years of life doesn't necessarily translate into 15 years of penitence and reform.
That said, I do feel for those who have committed a crime and changed. I can't imagine how hard life will be for someone who has had a real change of heart but must now enter any future human relationship as a "registered sex offender."
However, I'm not sure as a society whether or not we should cater to the needs of those individuals so long as our prison system is not meant to rehabilitate, or to insure that inmates who leave are "fixed."
A horrible law! | 2:12 p.m. July 1, 2008
Requiring passwords is ludicrous. If a warrant is required to access the
passwords, why not just get a warrant to access the site directly? MySpace etc.
already give access to law enforcement if there's a warrant. This law
further punishes past sex offenders and puts them at risk of false accusations.
And this is both risky sex offenders and the ones who are just like the rest of
us. Imagine the bureaucracy if you weren't allowed to change your password
or register on a web site without telling the government! All maybe because of
something wrong you did as a fourteen-year-old.
And seriously, no rights if you're a sex offender? Remember the Declaration of Independence: "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"? If you ignore the founding fathers and decide certain criminals get no rights, which ones? If the whole spectrum of sex offenders, from child molesters all the way to two adolescents succumbing to temptation are stripped of every right, who else? The geek who cracks passwords? The woman who can't resist shoplifting? The illegal immigrant who was brought here at age one? The guy with a speeding ticket?
And seriously, no rights if you're a sex offender? Remember the Declaration of Independence: "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"? If you ignore the founding fathers and decide certain criminals get no rights, which ones? If the whole spectrum of sex offenders, from child molesters all the way to two adolescents succumbing to temptation are stripped of every right, who else? The geek who cracks passwords? The woman who can't resist shoplifting? The illegal immigrant who was brought here at age one? The guy with a speeding ticket?
Annette | 2:38 p.m. July 1, 2008
My husband was arrested 13 years ago for one minor sex offense, not predatory at
all, NOT CHILD RAPE, spent a few months in jail and 4 years in counseling. He is
a much better person now for having gone through the counseling. 13 years later,
he is still on the registry because you have to be on it for 10 years after
probation ends. NOW he has to give away his passwords, register twice a year,
tell them immediately if he moves, give them info on ANY vehicle he might be
driving, etc., etc., etc., They keep adding and adding til he won't have
any freedom. You can't believe how difficult it is to even get a job, and
you can get a student loan to go to college and better yourself. The crime was
so minor that apparently it should not have even been listed as a felony, but he
had no money to fight it with and a court appointed attorney who wasn't
much help. Believe me, not everyone on that list is a child predator, so
don't lump them all together.
Zacko | 3:17 p.m. July 1, 2008
I have children and grandchildren, I am a huge fan of the Constitution of this
great country and I have no sympathy for sexual predators.
But I have a real problem with the sex registry. Why don't we have a thief registry, or murderer registry, or meth-using mom registry?
Your next door neighbor could have beat his child to death served a sentence for first degree murder, then made parole and as long as he didn't sexually assault the kid you would never know unless you do some real digging. But if the guy is found guilty of exposing himself then the whole world can know...forever.
Is the sentence for a sexual crime truly a life sentence? I submit that appearing on a registry for the rest of your life is a life sentence and could fall into the realm of cruel and unusual punishment.
But I have a real problem with the sex registry. Why don't we have a thief registry, or murderer registry, or meth-using mom registry?
Your next door neighbor could have beat his child to death served a sentence for first degree murder, then made parole and as long as he didn't sexually assault the kid you would never know unless you do some real digging. But if the guy is found guilty of exposing himself then the whole world can know...forever.
Is the sentence for a sexual crime truly a life sentence? I submit that appearing on a registry for the rest of your life is a life sentence and could fall into the realm of cruel and unusual punishment.
JT | 3:41 p.m. July 1, 2008
The Utah State legislature is happy to take away freedoms at any time for any
lame reasons. I guarantee sex offenders would get framed for stuff with this
kind of thing. They are not true conservatives because theyre expanding the
nanny state, whether it's removing the 4th amendment, upping the car-seat
age to 8, banning all fireworks, whatever.
Rebecca | 3:44 p.m. July 1, 2008
Zacko is right. This really does fall into the realm of cruel and unusual
punishment. The sex registry system in place today is public humiliation for
the rest of people's lives. I would like the people who say that once you
commit the crime, you lose your rights, to think about your mom or dad being
falsely accused, but still forced to register. Or how about the 17 year old who
had sex with the 15 year old, and years later are happily married but the father
cannot even volunteer at his child's school? The system is not only
unconstitutional, but it isn�t even protecting us from
people who are truly a danger to society. Our system is so messed up!
Nels | 3:55 p.m. July 1, 2008
Our sex registry system is communism, plain and simple. Once jail time and debt
to the community is served, people should be free to move forward with their
lives. Maybe for repeat offenders, something like the sex offender registry
might be a necessary tool, but the public humiliation and shame of being on the
registry are absolutely unconstitutional.
What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? All of you on your high horses who think people on the registry no longer have that right will be in for quite a shock when it happens to someone you love or even yourself. The registry controls where you can live, work, and now even has all of your most personal information, like passwords to your computer resources. Not to mention all of the public ostracizing from your good neighbors who treat you like a disease they don�t want to catch. Being on the registry means being a permanent outcast to society.
What about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? All of you on your high horses who think people on the registry no longer have that right will be in for quite a shock when it happens to someone you love or even yourself. The registry controls where you can live, work, and now even has all of your most personal information, like passwords to your computer resources. Not to mention all of the public ostracizing from your good neighbors who treat you like a disease they don�t want to catch. Being on the registry means being a permanent outcast to society.
Steve | 4:22 p.m. July 1, 2008
The registry also creates a false sense of security for some... they think
because they know John Doe down the street is on the list he's the only one
to worry about, so just keep an eye on him and the kids away from his house and
all is good.
Well that's wrong.
The majority are not abused by strangers, but rather by someone they know and love (a friend or relative). So it's the people you know, love and trust who you should really be watching... not just those "dirty men and women" on the registry list. Also most abusers haven't been caught yet and so of course they're not on the list.
Also, people think everyone on the list abused kids... not so, those who commited crimes against adults are also on it.
Being registered for life is far too much, as others have said... if the person is that great of a threat then keep them locked up. But those who are honestly trying to change and are successfully managing their urges, 10 years on the list is more than sufficient.
If we must have lists, be fair and require it of other crimes too.
Well that's wrong.
The majority are not abused by strangers, but rather by someone they know and love (a friend or relative). So it's the people you know, love and trust who you should really be watching... not just those "dirty men and women" on the registry list. Also most abusers haven't been caught yet and so of course they're not on the list.
Also, people think everyone on the list abused kids... not so, those who commited crimes against adults are also on it.
Being registered for life is far too much, as others have said... if the person is that great of a threat then keep them locked up. But those who are honestly trying to change and are successfully managing their urges, 10 years on the list is more than sufficient.
If we must have lists, be fair and require it of other crimes too.
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.
Related content
- Cougars cruise past Wagner 12:55 a.m.
- Climate talks near political accord 12:40 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:39 a.m.
- Wrap-up bill clears Senate hurdle 12:28 a.m.
- The hidden power of Christmas 12:08 a.m.
- Christmas spirit needed 12:08 a.m.
- A tribute to Earl Madsen 12:08 a.m.
- 'In the Company of Angels' inspiring 12:08 a.m.
- Gospel doctrine taught in Spanish 12:07 a.m.
- LDS ballet dancers focus on family 12:07 a.m.
- Susan Powell's family saddened
- Susan Powell notebook seized
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons
- Here are Max Hall's Top 10 wins
- It's official; Heaps signs with BYU
- Genetic testing, ethical dilemmas
- David Archuleta's different mission
- Frances Monson recovering well
- Y. hoops still trying to be consistent
- Watching over the Sacred Grove
- Here are Max Hall's Top 10 wins
157 - It's official; Heaps signs with BYU151
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons146
- Letters: 'Liberal conceit'138
- Jazz stunned by Timberwolves114
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child113
- Susan Powell notebook seized113
- Susan Powell's family saddened112
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police109
- Letters: Explaining Palin102
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Agree. Well said, Scott!
I was fortunate enough to see a preview of Avatar and I can tell you that it...
No one is complaining about the reliability of the trains (when scheduled to...
I'm just moving in! That is so sad and scary, Wow! What can be said. I hope...
Pagan just sits and grumbles on these comment lists all day. Look at how...
As article stated quite clearly, Wagner is part of the Las Vegas Classic,...
being able to read all about it on yahoo doesn't make it any harder for...
Always has its best moments in the offseason.
just like Galileo. Oh, except he was using science to fight against the...
The article fortunately did not mention the significant drop in Monavie's...
Advertisements