HARTFORD, CT — A proposal that would allow some on the sex offender registry to petition to shorten their registration period or apply for removal from the registry was unanimously approved Thursday by the Sentencing Commission.
The Sentencing Commission also approved recommending reducing misdemeanor sentencing from 365 days to 364 days. That one day would give immigration judges more discretion in deportation hearings. They decided to continue to study the issue of a constitutional amendment on pre-trial release and detention that would deny release to high-risk defendants and deny detention for lack of funds to secure a bail bond.
The commission’s recommendations will be forwarded to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the General Assembly for the start of the 2018 legislative session.
On the sex registry proposal, it would give those on the registry an opportunity to petition to shorten their registration period or apply for removal from the public registry. In order to do so the registrant would have to show that they have reduced their risk to the community.
Under the recommendation a person could be on the registry for shorter periods than under the current system, and others would be on for longer periods.
In order to petition the registrant would have to show that they have reduced their risk to the community. Under the new system a person could be on the registry for shorter periods than under the current system, and others would be on for longer periods.
Thomas Ullman, a former public defender from New Haven, said it was a “good proposal.”
The REPORT, recommendations are on pages 5-14.
Connecticut Sentencing Commission–A Study of the Sex Offender Sentencing, Registration, and Management System – December 2017
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/Sex_Offender_Report_12.1.2017Final_edits.pdf
Power Point summary of report and recommendations, Oct. 13, 2017
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/Special_Committee_on_Sex_Offender_10.13.17.pdf
Connecticut for One Standard of Justice | Dec. 11, 2017
Comments submitted by Connecticut for One Standard of Justice, Inc. on proposed Reform of the Sex Offender Registry and other recommendations of the Special Committee on Sex Offenders: This has been an incredibly short sighted and missed opportunity to bring science to bear on sex offender policy that would save Connecticut money, lower recidivism rates, reduce sexual violence and more closely conform state policy to what victims both want and need. MORE:
http://www.ctosj.org/2017/12/14/connecticut-sentencing-commission-public-hearing-december-11-2017/
Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Special Committee on Sex Offenders – member list, meeting minutes, background information and other materials
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/cwp/view.asp?a=4706&q=569200
Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Special Committee on Sex Offenders – 2016 Interim Report
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/SCSO_Interim_Report.pdf
Assessment, Treatment, and Risk Management of Persons Who have Sexually Offended: A Report to the Connecticut Sentencing Commission—June 22, 2017
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/CT_Sentencing_Commission_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Special Committee on Sex Offenders: Public Hearing on the Registration, Management and Sentencing of Sex Offenders – Jan. 25, 2017
Information and written testimony: http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/cwp/view.asp?a=4706&q=590138
Video: http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=13675
From the PDF provided above:
============
The court may order an offender’s removal from the registry if, in the opinion of
the court, such removal shall assist the offender in reintegration into the
community and shall be consistent with public safety. In making this
determination, the court shall consider the nature of the offense and the
petitioner’s conduct since the offense, including (1) the offender’s history of sex
offender and/or behavioral health treatment; (2) the results of any relevant risk
assessments and evaluations by behavioral health professionals; (3) the offender’s
history of employment and education; (4) the offender’s compliance with the
terms of parole, probation, and the requirements of the sex offender registry; and
(5) any other factors bearing on the offender’s reintegration into the community.
The registrant shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
============
I don’t comprehend this. This is a regulatory item, but they’re reviewing the past conviction and then noting everything since. Why is not getting in trouble with the law enough proof? Why does an individual have to prove that he or she is better than any Saint that has lived? Why does an individual still have to continue to serve the state as well as prove to the state that they’re an angel with wings long after they’ve served their custodial punishment?
This feels as if all registrants were still in jail and trying to petition to get paroled. Why exactly are registrants forced to continue to serve the state after completing their punishment services to the state?
I smell a veto on tap. The governor will veto this otherwise commonsense, constitution-compliant bill to gain political cred, because if he signs the bill the opponents will instantly brand him as a “pedophile lover.” Let’s see what happens.
This strikes me as empty ordinance, unless it also requires the judge to personally articulate his reasoning. Few judges write their own rulings, orders, or opinions and those that do only do so very rarely.
Regardless of the law, most judges will not look past the petitioner’s status as a sex offender beyond the charge(s) of conviction and will not be persuaded no matter how strong the case and rubber stamp the DA’s Xeroxed (as in duplicated from all other such petitions, the only difference being the petitioner’s name and case number) denial order.
The only answer is to get rid of the registry, at least the public one. Let law enforcement keep one if they choose – they’ll eventually phase themselves out when they realize what a useless article it really is in preventing or investigating crime.