NJ Supreme Court Strikes Down Mandatory Lifetime Registration for Juvenile Sex Offenders

On Tuesday, April, 24, 2018 the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a provision of Megan’s Law that required certain juvenile sex offenders to register for life. The case, State in the Interest of C.K., involved a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for a sex offense committed when he was a teenager. The High Court noted that twenty years had passed since C.K. committed his offense and that multiple psychological evaluations had found he posed “an extremely low risk to reoffend.” The Court held that requiring individuals, like C.K., to register for life under Megan’s Law, violated the New Jersey State Constitution.

These PDF documents give more details:

CK Decision – NJ Supreme Court 4-24-2018

CK NJ Sup Ct Press release 4-24-2018

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“…the continued constraints on their lives. and liberty pursuant to subsection (g), …takes on a PUNITIVE aspect that cannot be justified by our constitution.”

There it is. Irrefutably printed in a court ruling in the United States of America, admission that the registry has a tendency to be punishment.

Excuse me, your honors, but could you please explain to me if it is wrong for a juvenile to be on the list because it violates NJ’s State Constitution, then why is it not equally wrong for any individual to be on the list?

There are a number of elements to this case that make me wonder if it could be used (at least in NJ) to strike at ML in general. For one, to my understanding, punishment is punishment regardless of one’s age. The only place juveniles get lighter treatment is in the amount or length of punishment, where some is considered cruel and unusual (C&U) if applied to them. With that in mind, I have a hard time seeing how it can be punitive when applied to a juvenile versus an adult. I *can* see if they had said it’s punitive in general and cruel and unusual when applied to a juvenile. It’s being punitive is a yes/no proposition, I would think. It’s only after being found punitive that further analysis of it being C&U as applied to juveniles would kick in.

This case, in the hands of a sharp attorney, may be of use.

You are sharp AJ, how can they claim it is punishment for juv. and not adults , who by the way, regardless of what the courts or anyone states, are less likely to re-offend than juv. It is only common sense, juv. have less impulse control and in many cases have the rebellious attitudes. So although they also have extremely low rates (almost exactly the same as adults however) it only goes to common sense that they will re-offend higher than adults. Statistically anyways….