Legislation that has been introduced by state Assemblywoman Amy Handlin (R-Monmouth) would, if passed in the Legislature and signed into law by the governor, allow members of the public to access information concerning all sex offenders, regardless of an individual’s risk of committing additional offenses in the future. Full Article
Related posts
-
NJ: Governor, in veto, recommends barring sex offenders from mental health diversion programs
Source: newjerseymonitor.com 11/29/23 Gov. Phil Murphy this week conditionally vetoed a bill that would expand an intervention program... -
NJ: New Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey’s Lifetime Child Abuse Registry
Source: reason.com 3/7/23 “Lifetime registries are wrong,” said the plaintiff’s attorney. “They’re wrong based on the... -
NJ: NJ officials warn YouTube vigilante pedophile hunters to cut it out
Source: newsbreak.com 12/24/22 HACKENSACK, N.J. (1010 WINS) — The Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office asked the public...
Though not fully clear in the article, it appears the woman pushing for this was dating the guy before he was a RC. So now that he’s perhaps moved on and corrected his behavior, she wants to make sure he’s outed? And how many times has a RC in NJ recidivated? Oh yeah, hardly any…just like everywhere else.
=====
“Finally, the bill is unconstitutional. The New Jersey Supreme Court has already declared that Megan’s Law is constitutional only because the scope of community notification is closely tied to one’s risk to re-offend. This bill alters that by providing for blanket notification irrespective of one’s risk,”
—–
Those pesky constitutions keep getting in the way, don’t they? Too bad our federal Supreme Court doesn’t have similar wisdom. I really like the concept of “closely tied.”
“the bill is unconstitutional. The New Jersey Supreme Court has already declared that Megan’s Law is constitutional only because the scope of community notification is closely tied to one’s risk to re-offend. This bill alters that by providing for blanket notification irrespective of one’s risk,” Duddy said.”
So they know it’s unconstitutional, but yet they are going to spend taxpayers money to try and pass this law?
Let’s hope this never gets past the judiciary Committee.
Well with that court ruling in place in NJ, I don’t think this is going to go anywhere. Republicans don’t care about the constitution anyway. Mrs. Runner taught us Californians that quite well.
Doesn’t she care if she starts dating domestic violence offenders, drug dealers, arsonists, mobsters, dog fighters, and gun sellers? This sounds more like high tech stalking to me. The guy did nothing to personally harm her.
Once again, what does a person do with the information and remain law abiding, and how does it differ from reasonable caution of everyone else?
This lady is just nosy and looking for reasons to be miserable/paranoid.
Once a person serves their time and pays their debt to society they have a right to rejoin society without undue persecution. The registry discriminately paints a blanket image that the person is still a danger, that they are at risk of committing a crime, and that somehow society knows what they are thinking and what they will do in the future. I had a non-contact offense, yet I am now viewed as a person who will probably do a crime I never did in the past. The registry presents a totally false perception of the person who already completed all requirements by the justice department, that is why we are free (somewhat) to (supposedly) join society.
https://www.facebook.com/brooke.geringer if any can and wants to comment on her post for this law.
If you do, politely comment, with facts.
This woman has some serious issues, her entire FB page is all about this, and endless pictures of herself. She is pushing for this as an affirming agenda. She was obviously scorned by a man and this is her revenge. It is pretty scary that a person can have a personal vendetta made into law. I scrolled and scrolled on her page and it never ended, endless ranting and pushing for this, interspersed with endless pics of herself. A highly self centered and egocentric individual. I hope and pray the committee sees through this, but I am afraid it suits many of their agendas as well.
Another email sent to this bills promoters.
Dear Ms. Amy Handlin and Mr. Christopher Bateman:
As a former NJ resident convicted of a sex offense in NJ, I sort of lived a normal life in NJ because I wasn’t on the public sex offense registry as a level I offender. I was able to have employment and wasn’t a target of vigilantes seeking to harm sex offenders (physically or emotionally).
It wasn’t until I moved to Georgia where I WAS placed on the public sex offense website that I started having issues with employment, neighbors out to get me and loss of friends and family members.
Aside from this bill being unconstitutional, please bear in mind that all offenders aren’t the same and most, over 95%, do NOT commit another sex offense (the recidivism rate is very low compared to most other types of crimes). There is no reason why any sex offender should be on any registry much less level I offenders. The registry only promotes a fake sense of safety as most NEW sex offenses are committed by NON-sex offenders!
Law enforcement doesn’t need these registries as they already have the criminal records to search if needed; the public doesn’t need these registries as they are misleading the public that offenders will always be a harm…,THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH and you know that. Please stop feeding the myths!
Sincerely, [me] (my phone number and email were included if you wish to respond and I hope you do)