CT: Changes To Sex Offender Registry Will Be A Tough Sell

Source: ctnewsjunkie.com 8/27/21

Sentencing Commission weighs need for change versus public perception
by Lisa BackusAugust 27, 2021, 5:00 am

The proposal to move some people off the state’s sex offender registry is going to be a “heavy lift,” according to members of the state Sentencing Commission.

But members said it should lead to greater public safety by allowing police to focus on high-risk registrants instead of continually monitoring people who no longer pose a threat.

“With the volume of people on the registry, it dilutes their (law enforcement’s) ability to zero in on potential risks,” attorney Jennifer Zito, a member of the commission, said. “It also does a disservice to the public because they assume everyone on the registry is dangerous and that creates hysteria.”

Zito and other subcommittee members held their first discussion of two proposals to provide a path for removal from the registry during a meeting Thursday afternoon. The proposals will be shaped over the coming months before being voted on by the full Sentencing Commission and if passed, presented as possible legislation.

Connecticut is one of a few states that doesn’t provide a way for individuals to get off the sex offender registry, even for those who were convicted prior to its creation. The legislature required the Sentencing Commission in 2015 to research and develop proposals for reforming state policies regarding sex offenders. The commission issued a report in 2017 that detailed several proposals.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. 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.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. 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 please expand it for new people to better understand.
  18. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  19. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  20. 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.
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.  
 

22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Although it is described as a “tough sell”, it is important and noteworthy that the state of Connecticut is focused upon reducing its sex offender registry. Reductions today could lead to elimination tomorrow.

Under the first proposal, registrants would be allowed to petition the Superior Court to be removed from the public registry after 10 years. The court would hold a hearing for victims and prosecutors to provide input and the registrant would have to prove that they met all the requirements of their probation or parole and treatment during their time on the registry.

Doesn’t this all sound like a second bite at the same apple with victims at the hearing along with the prosecutors?

We got them on the run, that just goes to show you the power of numbers they’re starting to fear us they know it’s only a matter of time before this Powder Keg explodes so they’re tryin to release a little pressure.
All it takes is for one state to flip and the rest of them will follow have you notice the sex offender laws in each state in America are pretty much the same I mean they have some minor differences but they’re pretty much exactly the same that’s because states don’t want other offenders flooding into their state because their sex offender laws are more relax and not as harsh.
If every registrant in America picked one month out of the year went down to their local law enforcement agencies and registered as Transit and slept in their cars or RVs or motorhomes for 3 weeks it would be the most powerful and peaceful protest in the nation and it would literally destroy the Megan’s law database it wasn’t built to handle the stress of having to register and deregister that many people so fast at the same time SORNA would overload.
If you go to California’s Megan’s law website its ghetto az Hell and outdated, shows how much they care for Public Safety they can’t even take time to upgrading their website its been the same way since 2000

Last edited 2 years ago by AERO1

Tons of people put on the registry since 1998 either have no victim (sting arrestees) or have no victim who ever testified in court or would even know or care if the registrant was relieved of his requirement to register (many CP arrestees). They should be included in the second proposal. The lack of explicit discussion of either group in a committee dedicated to reforming SOR laws suggests they’re a bit out of their depth I’m afraid. I’m also sick of these politicians, etc. using the excuse of “no one wants to appear soft on sex offenders.” B.S. No one is tougher on sex offenders than politicians. God might have hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but the people of Egypt sure didn’t. They enjoy it.

The abolition of slavery was a tough sell too, to some. And they will fight to the death to defend it’s utility. Either free man is paid wages to maintain machines, or they are not. It’s a simple matter in a republic of free men.

Not sure why the victims need to be part of this? I thought the registry was about the good of the public safety not making someone feel better about someone being on the registry?

Politicians wouldn’t be seen as soft on registrants if they didn’t have a hard on for registrants. Instead they heard from relatives of rare cases and ran with it pushing more extreme laws every year. Now they don’t have the guts to be honest that they sold the public a bunch of bs for votes at the expense of the children.

“Connecticut is one of a few states that doesn’t provide a way for individuals to get off the sex offender registry, even for those who were convicted prior to its creation.”

Really? One of few that don’t? My understanding is that only a few do provide such a mechanism and that even then it’s nearly impossible. And for those lucky enough to get off the registry in one state, other states will still have them listed and they still have the feds to deal with.

Seems like another journalist who didn’t do the proper research.

How many times have we seen similarly themed articles like this in the past 8 years, only to have them fizzle out into nothing?

There’s nothing more frustrating and depressing than knowing that your fate rests on public perception that is conformable in their own ignorance.

The registry has NEVER been about “safety.” It has always been about fear. The same fear that is keeping people locked down over the thought of dying over a stupid flu.

A heavy lift huh? Even after natural disaster? Looks like they still don’t have their priorities straight. May the storms keep coming and drown them in their own stupidity and ignorance.

Three brief comments, two of which are just additional nuance.

Under the first proposal, registrants would be allowed to petition the Superior Court to be removed from the public registry after 10 years.

It’s worth noting that the Connecticut registry is conviction and repeat-conviction based tier system. The registration duration is already 10 years for tier 1.

A second proposal would allow people who were “grandfathered” onto the registry when it was created in 1998 to seek a hearing to be removed.

By CT Gen Stat (henceforth CGS) §54-255c, one who was grandfathered onto the registry can already petition to be removed from the public registry, for certain categories of offense with certain sentences. This of course does not contradict the article, as the proposal involves removing registration per se.

The reason for that restriction on individuals convicted and placed on the registry after 1998 is to uphold the convictions as victims understood them

Hmm, even though the registry is supposedly an administrative collateral consequence of conviction, this is a textbook truth-in-sentencing argument from the tough-on-crime playbook – although ironically, it is to some registrants’ benefit this time. Almost like it is a punishment. I do have to thank state officials for being more likely to drop the mask and say the quiet part out loud.