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
Have been very happy to share checkpoint info with friends so they can be safe and sober drivers. Thanks for a great community effort
Ron T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Deserved 5 star review. I got all my charges dismissed.
Mraz09222
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
2 👍🏻👍🏻 up
Cc
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I got my life back together because of this man he is quick,strategic,and will get you threw almost any criminal matter.When things are looking rough legal wise he will fight for you…FRED SISTO THE WAY TO GO!!!
Byron P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is an outstanding lawyer. As a fellow attorney, I've relied on his expertise in several cases, and have referred clients to him with excellent results.
Wyman
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great site Fred. keep up the good work at informing the public of these unlawful check points.
Mark H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a very competent attorney. He is knowledgeable, thorough, effective and possesses outstanding interpersonal skills. He provided excellent representation in my case and obtained a favorable outcome.
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I called Mr. Sisto a few weeks back and he returned the call immediately! I asked a few questions and he clearly explained the options for one of my employees. He then followed up with a detailed proposal. He was completely knowledgeable, helpful and insightful. If I ever had to use him I would feel VERY comfortable with his representation.
Dave P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
mr. fred sisto esq. was very professional, answered all questions i had, & made my husband & i feel more at ease about our criminal case.
Meridith T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thank you Fred for all your hard work and communication through my case. I got into a situation and very fortunate to have had Fred help me resolve it. He gave me great options and advice on how he would handle the situation and the steps we needed to follow. Highly satisfied with my experience and would highly recommend. Thank you Anthony Zappulla
Anthony Z