NCJFCJ Releases Resolution for Sex Offender Requirements for Youth Under Age 18

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) released its latest resolution regarding sex offender requirements for youth under the age of 18.

Research shows that placing youth on sex offender registries does not advance public safety and can actually make communities less safe. Research also shows that re-offending rates for youth who offend sexually are extremely low and that juvenile sexual re-offense risk assessments have been validated for predicting sexual re-offending. Full Press Release

RELATED LINKS:

KY: Grayson County Sheriff’s Office warns of “sexting” trend among teens [wbko.com -3/28/19]

 

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.  
 

9 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Research shows that placing youth on sex offender registries does not advance public safety and can actually make communities less safe. Research also shows that re-offending rates for youth who offend sexually are extremely low and that juvenile sexual re-offense risk assessments have been validated for predicting sexual re-offending”

Oh, FFS! This is true for ALL of us (as a group)! I know this is a step in the right direction, but it’s maddening that somehow a 17-year-old, falls under this category, but 18+ suddenly is broken forever and a mortal danger to the community. It’s like that damn Static-99. Me getting +1 point because I was a 2 years under their threshold for +0 is complete BS. And that 1 point made a HUGE difference to me in regards being able to get off the net. And it’s even bigger for those for whom +1 point because of their age resulted in a score of 6, especially with the new tiered registry.

STOP BEING LAZY TRYING TO FIT EVERYONE INTO A NEAT LITTLE HOLE. Individual assessments should ALWAYS be used. A 40-year-old could be far less dangerous than a deranged 16-year-old, and anything in between.

I know they are talking about those under 18 and I agree it is everyone on the registry and this dividing line is ridiculous but at least the constant admission of the harm the registry does may help all in the long haul….I hope.