ITEMS
My reasoning for 'letting the kids off'
Dublin Core
Title
My reasoning for 'letting the kids off'
Description
A Herald Journal Opinion piece by Scott Wyatt, Cache County attorney, explaining why he dismissed the trespassing charges against the teenagers.
My reasoning for ‘letting the kids off’
By Scott Wyatt
Cache County attorney
“As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person…is the owner of the property.”
Over the past few days, I’ve received several calls from various people questioning why I would “let the kids off” by dismissing the trespassing charges that were brought against them. I hope to clarify some confusion as to why the charges were dismissed.
As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person (or persons) is the owner of the property. In a time when we are becoming ever more aware and concerned about individual property rights, it would be an unfortunate state of affairs to see a governmental official, like me, or other community members usurp the landowner’s authority to make these critical personal decisions about his or her land.
When the owners of St. Anne’s retreat called and requested that I drop the trespass charges that were brought against the kids, I felt duty-bound to respect their rights in their property and honor their request. I dismissed the charges. As the elected prosecutor, whose duty it is to serve the public, I, and my staff, will continue to vigorously prosecute appropriate trespassing cases (that are supported by laws and the evidence) when requested by the landowner, and I will also continue to decline to prosecute cases when the owner does not want the matter pursued in court.
There has also been some confusion as to what these kids were actually charged with. They were not charged with intending to damage property or vandalism as there is no evidence of that. They were charged with simple criminal trespass, which means nothing more than they crossed a fence or other enclosure designed to keep them out or they passed a no trespassing sign.
I would like to get back to the question of “letting the kids off.” Forgive me, in this case, for being somewhat of an optimist. But, I like to hope that, despite the owner’s insistence that I not pursue criminal charges, the kids are not necessarily “getting off.” Juvenile court is obviously not the only means of correction for our youth. The primary source of discipline for our kids is good parents. I have personally met with most of the parents of the kids involved in the St. Anne’s event and believe all of them to be good parents who are doing their best to help their kids grow up to become honorable adults. These parents understand the seriousness of what their kids did and are working to discipline and teach their kids with respect to this incident. These kids are generally good kids, and I believe they will respond to this event and their parents’ teaching in a positive matter.
I’m not sure there is much value in attempting to second guess the basis for the owners ‘decision to not have the kids prosecuted. They told me they were concerned that the three men who confronted the kids went beyond their authority and good judgement and that the kids had more than paid the price for their trespass. I respect the decision based on their compassion toward these ids and, based on reports I’ve received from some of the concerned parents, believe that their assessment might just be true.
For the benefit of the owners of St. Anne’s retreat and the owners of other cabins and property in this county let me end this letter with a plea. Young men and women-please consider the plight of the owners of St. Anne’s and other cabins. After spending considerable sums of money and time to purchase and improve recreation property for their families’ enjoyment, they have difficulty finding pleasure in it. Vandalism continues to “nickel and dime” cabin owners to death. In the case of St. Anne’s retreat, vandalism to the extent of almost $100,000 over the past several years. Hundreds of small acts of vandalism, a broken window here, a busted door there, and on and on, add up to extraordinary sums of money.
The owners’ decision to drop the charges here is based on specific concerns about how these kids were treated by the “watchman.” Charges brought against the next group of kids who trespass will not be dropped. Please understand this-I can give you names of people my office prosecuted who were sent to the Point of the Mountain and are currently serving time in prison for vandalism and thefts they committed in cabins in Logan Canyon. We aggressively prosecute these cases and will continue to do so when requested by the owners.
But threats should not be necessary to motivate considerate people. Each of us should make decisions to keep off others property out of respect for their rights rather than fear of prosecution and punishment. These frustrations that owners of cabins have are no different than the concerns of farmers who are constantly rebuilding their fences and suffering other damages from sportsmen and others-or the concerns of people who have storage sheds, cars, houses, bikes or anything else of value. We all own something we don’t want damaged or destroyed by others.
The historical buildings and grounds at St. Anne’s retreat are beautiful and irreplaceable; please leave them alone. Some trespassers might say, “but, I didn’t hurt anything, I just walked through.” Don’t kid yourself, even wandering through the retreat destroys the owners’ quiet enjoyment. Please respect their rights.
By Scott Wyatt
Cache County attorney
“As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person…is the owner of the property.”
Over the past few days, I’ve received several calls from various people questioning why I would “let the kids off” by dismissing the trespassing charges that were brought against them. I hope to clarify some confusion as to why the charges were dismissed.
As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person (or persons) is the owner of the property. In a time when we are becoming ever more aware and concerned about individual property rights, it would be an unfortunate state of affairs to see a governmental official, like me, or other community members usurp the landowner’s authority to make these critical personal decisions about his or her land.
When the owners of St. Anne’s retreat called and requested that I drop the trespass charges that were brought against the kids, I felt duty-bound to respect their rights in their property and honor their request. I dismissed the charges. As the elected prosecutor, whose duty it is to serve the public, I, and my staff, will continue to vigorously prosecute appropriate trespassing cases (that are supported by laws and the evidence) when requested by the landowner, and I will also continue to decline to prosecute cases when the owner does not want the matter pursued in court.
There has also been some confusion as to what these kids were actually charged with. They were not charged with intending to damage property or vandalism as there is no evidence of that. They were charged with simple criminal trespass, which means nothing more than they crossed a fence or other enclosure designed to keep them out or they passed a no trespassing sign.
I would like to get back to the question of “letting the kids off.” Forgive me, in this case, for being somewhat of an optimist. But, I like to hope that, despite the owner’s insistence that I not pursue criminal charges, the kids are not necessarily “getting off.” Juvenile court is obviously not the only means of correction for our youth. The primary source of discipline for our kids is good parents. I have personally met with most of the parents of the kids involved in the St. Anne’s event and believe all of them to be good parents who are doing their best to help their kids grow up to become honorable adults. These parents understand the seriousness of what their kids did and are working to discipline and teach their kids with respect to this incident. These kids are generally good kids, and I believe they will respond to this event and their parents’ teaching in a positive matter.
I’m not sure there is much value in attempting to second guess the basis for the owners ‘decision to not have the kids prosecuted. They told me they were concerned that the three men who confronted the kids went beyond their authority and good judgement and that the kids had more than paid the price for their trespass. I respect the decision based on their compassion toward these ids and, based on reports I’ve received from some of the concerned parents, believe that their assessment might just be true.
For the benefit of the owners of St. Anne’s retreat and the owners of other cabins and property in this county let me end this letter with a plea. Young men and women-please consider the plight of the owners of St. Anne’s and other cabins. After spending considerable sums of money and time to purchase and improve recreation property for their families’ enjoyment, they have difficulty finding pleasure in it. Vandalism continues to “nickel and dime” cabin owners to death. In the case of St. Anne’s retreat, vandalism to the extent of almost $100,000 over the past several years. Hundreds of small acts of vandalism, a broken window here, a busted door there, and on and on, add up to extraordinary sums of money.
The owners’ decision to drop the charges here is based on specific concerns about how these kids were treated by the “watchman.” Charges brought against the next group of kids who trespass will not be dropped. Please understand this-I can give you names of people my office prosecuted who were sent to the Point of the Mountain and are currently serving time in prison for vandalism and thefts they committed in cabins in Logan Canyon. We aggressively prosecute these cases and will continue to do so when requested by the owners.
But threats should not be necessary to motivate considerate people. Each of us should make decisions to keep off others property out of respect for their rights rather than fear of prosecution and punishment. These frustrations that owners of cabins have are no different than the concerns of farmers who are constantly rebuilding their fences and suffering other damages from sportsmen and others-or the concerns of people who have storage sheds, cars, houses, bikes or anything else of value. We all own something we don’t want damaged or destroyed by others.
The historical buildings and grounds at St. Anne’s retreat are beautiful and irreplaceable; please leave them alone. Some trespassers might say, “but, I didn’t hurt anything, I just walked through.” Don’t kid yourself, even wandering through the retreat destroys the owners’ quiet enjoyment. Please respect their rights.
Source
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, FOLK COLL 32
Publisher
Rights
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Relation
Utah State University Folklore in the news collection, 1973-2012, FOLK COLL 32
http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv04849
St. Anne's Retreat
Language
Type
Identifier
http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p16944coll20/id/25
SCAFOLK032Bx003Fd07Item0016.pdf
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
My reasoning for ‘letting the kids off’
By Scott Wyatt
Cache County attorney
“As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person…is the owner of the property.”
Over the past few days, I’ve received several calls from various people questioning why I would “let the kids off” by dismissing the trespassing charges that were brought against them. I hope to clarify some confusion as to why the charges were dismissed.
As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person (or persons) is the owner of the property. In a time when we are becoming ever more aware and concerned about individual property rights, it would be an unfortunate state of affairs to see a governmental official, like me, or other community members usurp the landowner’s authority to make these critical personal decisions about his or her land.
When the owners of St. Anne’s retreat called and requested that I drop the trespass charges that were brought against the kids, I felt duty-bound to respect their rights in their property and honor their request. I dismissed the charges. As the elected prosecutor, whose duty it is to serve the public, I, and my staff, will continue to vigorously prosecute appropriate trespassing cases (that are supported by laws and the evidence) when requested by the landowner, and I will also continue to decline to prosecute cases when the owner does not want the matter pursued in court.
There has also been some confusion as to what these kids were actually charged with. They were not charged with intending to damage property or vandalism as there is no evidence of that. They were charged with simple criminal trespass, which means nothing more than they crossed a fence or other enclosure designed to keep them out or they passed a no trespassing sign.
I would like to get back to the question of “letting the kids off.” Forgive me, in this case, for being somewhat of an optimist. But, I like to hope that, despite the owner’s insistence that I not pursue criminal charges, the kids are not necessarily “getting off.” Juvenile court is obviously not the only means of correction for our youth. The primary source of discipline for our kids is good parents. I have personally met with most of the parents of the kids involved in the St. Anne’s event and believe all of them to be good parents who are doing their best to help their kids grow up to become honorable adults. These parents understand the seriousness of what their kids did and are working to discipline and teach their kids with respect to this incident. These kids are generally good kids, and I believe they will respond to this event and their parents’ teaching in a positive matter.
I’m not sure there is much value in attempting to second guess the basis for the owners ‘decision to not have the kids prosecuted. They told me they were concerned that the three men who confronted the kids went beyond their authority and good judgement and that the kids had more than paid the price for their trespass. I respect the decision based on their compassion toward these ids and, based on reports I’ve received from some of the concerned parents, believe that their assessment might just be true.
For the benefit of the owners of St. Anne’s retreat and the owners of other cabins and property in this county let me end this letter with a plea. Young men and women—please consider the plight of the owners of St. Anne’s and other cabins. After spending considerable sums of money and time to purchase and improve recreation property for their families’ enjoyment, they have difficulty finding pleasure in it. Vandalism continues to “nickel and dime” cabin owners to death. In the case of St. Anne’s retreat, vandalism to the extent of almost $100,000 over the past several years. Hundreds of small acts of vandalism, a broken window here, a busted door there, and on and on, add up to extraordinary sums of money.
The owners’ decision to drop the charges here is based on specific concerns about how these kids were treated by the “watchman.” Charges brought against the next group of kids who trespass will not be dropped. Please understand this—I can give you names of people my office prosecuted who were sent to the Point of the Mountain and are currently serving time in prison for vandalism and thefts they committed in cabins in Logan Canyon. We aggressively prosecute these cases and will continue to do so when requested by the owners.
But threats should not be necessary to motivate considerate people. Each of us should make decisions to keep off others property out of respect for their rights rather than fear of prosecution and punishment. These frustrations that owners of cabins have are no different than the concerns of farmers who are constantly rebuilding their fences and suffering other damages from sportsmen and others—or the concerns of people who have storage sheds, cars, houses, bikes or anything else of value. We all own something we don’t want damaged or destroyed by others.
The historical buildings and grounds at St. Anne’s retreat are beautiful and irreplaceable; please leave them alone. Some trespassers might say, “but, I didn’t hurt anything, I just walked through.” Don’t kid yourself, even wandering through the retreat destroys the owners’ quiet enjoyment. Please respect their rights.
By Scott Wyatt
Cache County attorney
“As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person…is the owner of the property.”
Over the past few days, I’ve received several calls from various people questioning why I would “let the kids off” by dismissing the trespassing charges that were brought against them. I hope to clarify some confusion as to why the charges were dismissed.
As I see it, there is only one person who should have authority to initiate and terminate prosecution of a property crime such as trespass. That one person (or persons) is the owner of the property. In a time when we are becoming ever more aware and concerned about individual property rights, it would be an unfortunate state of affairs to see a governmental official, like me, or other community members usurp the landowner’s authority to make these critical personal decisions about his or her land.
When the owners of St. Anne’s retreat called and requested that I drop the trespass charges that were brought against the kids, I felt duty-bound to respect their rights in their property and honor their request. I dismissed the charges. As the elected prosecutor, whose duty it is to serve the public, I, and my staff, will continue to vigorously prosecute appropriate trespassing cases (that are supported by laws and the evidence) when requested by the landowner, and I will also continue to decline to prosecute cases when the owner does not want the matter pursued in court.
There has also been some confusion as to what these kids were actually charged with. They were not charged with intending to damage property or vandalism as there is no evidence of that. They were charged with simple criminal trespass, which means nothing more than they crossed a fence or other enclosure designed to keep them out or they passed a no trespassing sign.
I would like to get back to the question of “letting the kids off.” Forgive me, in this case, for being somewhat of an optimist. But, I like to hope that, despite the owner’s insistence that I not pursue criminal charges, the kids are not necessarily “getting off.” Juvenile court is obviously not the only means of correction for our youth. The primary source of discipline for our kids is good parents. I have personally met with most of the parents of the kids involved in the St. Anne’s event and believe all of them to be good parents who are doing their best to help their kids grow up to become honorable adults. These parents understand the seriousness of what their kids did and are working to discipline and teach their kids with respect to this incident. These kids are generally good kids, and I believe they will respond to this event and their parents’ teaching in a positive matter.
I’m not sure there is much value in attempting to second guess the basis for the owners ‘decision to not have the kids prosecuted. They told me they were concerned that the three men who confronted the kids went beyond their authority and good judgement and that the kids had more than paid the price for their trespass. I respect the decision based on their compassion toward these ids and, based on reports I’ve received from some of the concerned parents, believe that their assessment might just be true.
For the benefit of the owners of St. Anne’s retreat and the owners of other cabins and property in this county let me end this letter with a plea. Young men and women—please consider the plight of the owners of St. Anne’s and other cabins. After spending considerable sums of money and time to purchase and improve recreation property for their families’ enjoyment, they have difficulty finding pleasure in it. Vandalism continues to “nickel and dime” cabin owners to death. In the case of St. Anne’s retreat, vandalism to the extent of almost $100,000 over the past several years. Hundreds of small acts of vandalism, a broken window here, a busted door there, and on and on, add up to extraordinary sums of money.
The owners’ decision to drop the charges here is based on specific concerns about how these kids were treated by the “watchman.” Charges brought against the next group of kids who trespass will not be dropped. Please understand this—I can give you names of people my office prosecuted who were sent to the Point of the Mountain and are currently serving time in prison for vandalism and thefts they committed in cabins in Logan Canyon. We aggressively prosecute these cases and will continue to do so when requested by the owners.
But threats should not be necessary to motivate considerate people. Each of us should make decisions to keep off others property out of respect for their rights rather than fear of prosecution and punishment. These frustrations that owners of cabins have are no different than the concerns of farmers who are constantly rebuilding their fences and suffering other damages from sportsmen and others—or the concerns of people who have storage sheds, cars, houses, bikes or anything else of value. We all own something we don’t want damaged or destroyed by others.
The historical buildings and grounds at St. Anne’s retreat are beautiful and irreplaceable; please leave them alone. Some trespassers might say, “but, I didn’t hurt anything, I just walked through.” Don’t kid yourself, even wandering through the retreat destroys the owners’ quiet enjoyment. Please respect their rights.
Catalog Search
Search for related records in these catalogs:
Document Viewer
Embed
Copy the code below into your web page
Comments