Constitutionality of Lifetime Parole Supervision for Juvenile Sex Offenders (Part 3)

by | Aug 1, 2018 | Blog, Criminal Law, Juvenile Delinquency, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Juvenile DelinquencyJustice Albin continued: Even a lifetime presumption with a twenty-five-year look-back period has been found violative of some states’ constitutions. New Jersey’s lifetime presumption of dangerousness that attaches to juvenile sex offenders pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:7-29(g) is more extreme than the registration and notification schemes, as applied to juveniles, struck down by the Ohio and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts. See C.P., 967 N.E.2d at 732, 737; J.B., 107 A.3d at 2, 17. The Ohio and Pennsylvania schemes, which allowed juvenile sex offenders to seek the lifting of registration and notification requirements after the passage of twenty-five years, were deemed constitutionally offensive because the classifications were not based on ongoing individual risk assessments. C.P., 967 N.E.2d at 741-42; J.B., 107 A.3d at 17. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-29(g) is even out of step with federal SORNA, which has no permanent lifetime registration provision for juveniles. A juvenile Tier III offender under the federal enactment is subject to a presumptive lifetime registration but, after twenty-five years, is eligible to have his registration requirements terminated. 34 U.S.C. § 20915(a)(3) to (b).

Subsection (g) of N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2, moreover, cannot be viewed in isolation from other provisions of the statute. Subsection (f) imposes presumptive lifetime registration and notification requirements for sex offenses covered by subsection (g) but allows for a juvenile sex offender to be relieved of those requirements fifteen years after his juvenile adjudication or release from a correctional facility, provided he has been offense-free and “is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.” Thus, under subsection (f), those juvenile sex offenders who have reoffended or pose a continuing threat after fifteen years will not be relieved of their registration and notification requirements.

The Court uses the term “offense-free” here. This implies that a single disorderly persons or perhaps even an ordinance conviction after being placed on the registry means that the offender will be stuck on the registry forever. That view is at odds with the plain language of the statute that reads “A person sentenced to a term of parole supervision for life may petition the Superior Court for release from that parole supervision. The judge may grant a petition for release from a special sentence of parole supervision for life only upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the person has not committed a crime for 15 years since the last conviction or release from incarceration, whichever is later, and that the person is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others if released from parole supervision.” The plain language suggests that only crimes (felonies) will create a bar to de-registration. Moreover, the plain language suggests that a single crime would merely re-start the 15- year clock, as opposed to operating a s a permanent bar to de-registration.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Excellent advice. Clam and accretive. Handled my case professionally and efficiently. Thank you for the great service. -D.
Danni K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very pleased with my representation by Fred Sisto. He is very honest and explained everything to me in detail. I would recommend him to anybody who is seeking legal representation..
Jeff M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very informative. Would not hesitate to use Attorney Sisto.
Rose C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I had occasion to speak with Fred regarding one of my employees who was dealing with an extended revocation. Fred gave me several suggestions which I passed on along with his name and number. I think he used him and he is now back driving. Fred was very professional and responsive even though I wasn't a client.
Dave P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr Sisto did an excellent job in defending my innocence in court. He got me the best result possible. Along with his professionalism and timely responses he was a terrific choice.
Emily F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
i have not needed the service of fred sisto but am grateful for the notices i receive
Bill P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr.Sisto helped me with my registration recently and it was a success. He was not only professional, but he answered in a timely matter and was very detail-oriented. He made sure my issue was resolved as fast as he could. I highly recommend Mr.Sisto to anyone who is experiencing legal issues.
Daniella T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Honestamente el mejor, lucha hasta el final para darte los mejores resultados y es muy honesto. En mi caso iba a perder mi licencia de conducir y hasta dos años de probatoria y el Sr. Sisto lo resolvió con una multa. Estoy muy agradecido y satisfecho con los resultados y del trabajo de el.
Emmanuel A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Have nothing but great things to say about Fred, highly recommended
Bill S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very content with Fred’s services. He was extremely communicative throughout the entire process and I am happy with our results.
Lidia D