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
Highly professional The lawyer Frederick is a serious and professional person, he helped me a lot in my case, I recommend him a lot to help you too, he is always in contact with you explaining the process, a very patient and kind person.
Ca
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto and his entire staff were courteous, professional and got our case handled quickly and to the best outcome. Great lawyer. Highly recommend.
Bryan B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Fred Sisto is really an amazing attorney! Professional, knowledgeable, and effective. He made me feel comfortable in knowing he was working countless hours on my case to get me the best possible outcome. Mr. Sisto was very responsive and kept me updated with all court proceedings/updates. I am thankful to have had him represent me. I will be recommending Mr. Sisto & his firm to anyone in need. Thanks again ! Much Appreciated
Javier B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto is very responsive, courteous, and he really knows what he's doing. I highly recommend Fred.
Kenneth L
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
Mr. Sisto provides outstanding support and guidance, he is absolutely very quick to respond to your initial inquiry and stands by you throughout your legal circumstances. I highly recommend Mr. Sisto to assist you in your time of need! You will truly be thankful you used his expertise and services!
Ej W
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very good
Nazario B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Spot on, 100%
Earl M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was great and very reasonable. He was extremely easy to get ahold of or very quick to return my calls. I was able to get my charge dropped altogether. I highly recommend Fred!
Jasmine C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great lawyer. Got the best results for me. Very responsive!
Kathleen S