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
Fred was excellent and helped my son deal with a issue in PPB, despite being a long distance away. He is very thorough and knows how to navigate the ins and outs of the local legal waters.
Bruces
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
always feel better knowing I don't need to be stopped when I haven't done anything wrong it's a great service and gives me peace of mint
Liesel T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Called back within 10 minutes,very easy to talk to. Not judgmental at all. I am hopeful about the outcome.
Colleen H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fantastic lawyer, I had two charges that were thankfully dropped thanks to Fred. If you're looking for a great lawyer, Fred Sisto is the guy to call. 5 stars. Thank you Fred Sisto.
Dan M
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
Fred sisto was an absolute life saver in my case I would recommend him to anyone in the future if needed.
Nelson C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great that Fred posts DUI for Monmouth County!
David F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I recently retained Mr. Fred Sisto to represent my son regarding a very serious legal matter. If not handled correctly these charges could have resulted in bad consequences for my son's future prospects. Mr. Sisto's knowledge of the criminal justice system is evident since he was able to get all charges dropped as well as getting them expunged from his record. If you need a criminal justice attorney who will respond quickly to all your questions and concern,as well as achieve a satisfactory solution to your case I strongly recommend Attorney Fred Sisto.
Joseph M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
That’s my lawyer he’s the greatest
Donald J
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was incredibly helpful during a very stressful time. Even during a pandemic he was fast at responding to any and all questions or problems that I had. He went above and beyond to make sure that I was happy with my results and that my case was being handled properly all the way through. Highly recommend this office!
Toni V