ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


NJ: Supreme Court – Sex offenders who served their time can’t face penalties under new laws

Sex offenders can not be subjected to punishments under newly created laws if they committed their offense and served their time before the legislation was passed, the state Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision Monday.

In 1986, ____ ____ was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on a minor and given a 20-year sentence. About six months after his release in 2009, when ____ was under no form of parole, the parole board said he would have to comply with the 2007 Sex Offender Monitoring Act meaning that he would have to wear an ankle bracelet form the rest of his life. He appealed the requirement of what he said was a new punishment constituting life time parole imposed after he had committed his act and after he served his prison term. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Senseless. Vindictive. Counter productive. A violation of human decency. That’s registration. Glad to see the court making a rational decision.

Hot Damn!!!! We gotta figure a way to get Justice Barry Albin to move to num-nut land (California)!!!! Why hasn’t California heard that “A well established principle of ancient origin is that the Legislature cannot increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed?” Or the rest of the country for that matter!

Am I reading this right????? “Parole is a form of punishment under the constitution,” Albin wrote. “When applied to Riley, [the monitoring act] violates both the federal and state constitutional guarantees.” Does this mean a precident has been set that can be used here?

“The dissenting appellate court judge said that a monitoring devise was regulatory and non-punitive.”

Regulatory…regulatory…regulatory! These judges who say this stuff is regulatory need to take that word and STICK IT!!!

These judges who say this stuff is regulatory are either not in touch with reality or are acting on prejudice, which is in and of it’s self as form of dishonesty.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey is to be commended for upholding the federal constitution in making this common sense ruling. Decisions like this could lead to a review by the U.S. Supreme Court of its 2003 decision which states, to the contrary, that registration and all its entails is not punishment. California RSOL will continue to work toward the goal of overturning that U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

Probably a stupid question, but do you envision this review including those who were subject to the registry after it was in place, and not just those added to the list retroactively? Not sure I’m explaining my correctly. It seems that a lot of these rulings would only affect those who were retroactively put on the list if they were sentenced before the registry existed. For those of us poor souls who were added to the list after then (I was sentenced in 2008) it doesn’t seem like these rulings would help us. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled for… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x