Few topics provoke stronger emotions than the discussion of sex offender registries. For many, the mere idea of allowing someone to be removed from such a list feels unthinkable. It’s an understandable reaction — most of the crimes that land someone on a registry are serious, and public safety must be our top priority. Victims deserve justice, and communities deserve protection.
Utah’s sex offender registry, however, includes a wide range of offenses, many of which do not involve violence. These can include public urination, streaking, indecent exposure or engaging in consensual sexual activity with a minor (although the age-gap laws have been modified over the years). While sex crimes of any degree are inexcusable, not every individual on the registry currently poses a threat to public safety. For those who have served their full jail sentence and have shown meaningful reform, there is a strict, narrow pathway for proving rehabilitation.
The registry was designed to inform communities and offer victims some peace of mind. However, research on registries presents a complex picture. Some studies suggest that requiring lifetime registration without any chance for removal can actually increase recidivism by isolating individuals and making them feel they have no path to reintegration.
If our goal is truly to protect our communities, we must ensure that our policies are not only tough but also effective. A rigorous yet attainable process for early removal may reduce recidivism and allow law enforcement to focus resources on those who remain a genuine threat.
When the registry was created in 1983, people with consensual teenage relationships were added without retroactive adjustments as laws were updated. One woman shared how her son, who had a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old when he was in college and is now married to this person with three children, remains on the registry despite now having a stable family life.
Consider the case of a 70-year-old woman who, due to mental health issues, has engaged in streaking when she did not take her medication. With multiple offenses, she is now required to register as a sex offender and struggles to find a care facility willing to accept her. While her behavior is clearly inappropriate, does keeping her on the registry make our communities safer? Wouldn’t we all be safer if she was able to receive the help she needs?
Or take the case of a man who committed a crime decades ago, served his full sentence, has been forgiven by the victim and is now quadriplegic in a nursing home. He poses no threat to anyone, yet his wife must pay a fee to have him re-registered every year.
Utah’s process provides a pathway for individuals who no longer pose a threat to public safety — like the examples mentioned above — to petition for early removal from the registry. This process is not automatic, nor is it easy. In fact, those convicted of crimes involving force, coercion or repeat offenses are not even eligible to have their cases considered. In short, it is a carefully designed, meticulous system that allows only a select group of individuals to request a hearing.
The criteria to even qualify to petition are extremely high: an individual must have served their full sentence, completed a treatment program and undergone a risk assessment by a psychiatrist or other professional to demonstrate they no longer pose a threat. If they meet these stringent requirements, they must then convince a judge that they should be removed. Former victims can testify if they decide to do so.
This process has proven successful in keeping rehabilitation attainable, but only for a select group. Since 2015, fewer than 60 individuals on the registry have qualified for removal, demonstrating the thoroughness of the review process.
The goal of our criminal justice system should always be to hold individuals accountable while also allowing for rehabilitation when appropriate. By providing a highly selective, thoroughly vetted process for early removal, we are not weakening public safety — we are strengthening it.
This is not about excusing past crimes or reducing jail time. It’s about ensuring that our laws serve their intended purpose: protecting the public while allowing for true rehabilitation for those who have demonstrated true reform.