Having found that the operative date for determining whether subsection (g) is effective as to a particular registrant is the date on which the registrant commits the offenses that require lifetime registration, we now hold that the trial court and Appellate Division erred in finding that subsection (g) should apply to registrant. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for determination of registrant’s application.
The Court’s focus on the date of the offense makes more sense than focusing on the date of conviction. The date of conviction can be subject to delays and manipulation by the defendant who seeks to avoid the penalties contemplated by pending legislation. On the other hand, focusing on the date of the offense is consistent with retroactivity concerns. The Appellate Division likely recognized the trend in our caselaw towards decisions that weigh against the rights of convicted sex offenders. That could explain why in a difficult case, they sided against this defendant, i.e., they felt it was the best way to avoid being reversed. Here, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court held otherwise.