ND: North Dakota House passes bill to allow sex offenders to apply for early removal from registry

Source: jamestownsun.com 1/23/25

The House voted 62-29 in favor of a bill that would allow registered sex offenders to ask the courts to remove them from the state registry earlier than what’s currently provided in law.

BISMARCK — The North Dakota House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday, Jan. 23, that would allow low-risk sex offenders to ask the court to strike them from the state registry early.

Introduced by Rep. Jason Dockter, R-Bismarck, House Bill 1231 would create a process in which sex offenders could apply for a petition that would let the courts decide whether to remove them from the state registry after being on it for seven years.

 The courts would review the petition, consider any statements provided by the offender’s victim(s) and determine whether the petitioner still poses a risk to the public — all proceedings that would be closed to the public.

The minimum amount of time offenders spend on the registry is 15 years.

If passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. Kelly Armstrong, the law would apply to low-risk sex offenders who maintain a clean record since after conviction.

Read the full article

 

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.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Congrats to our brethren in N.D. Start filing! 7 yrs? Come on California, let’s beat them. lower ours to 5!

Last edited 1 day ago by Way too long

Hopefully they don’t need a case to make their system right, e.g., Thai in CA where the DA has to prove their objection is worthy based upon evidence and not just because they’re expected to. Be nice to see some ND defense attys reaching out to @ACSOL for guidance on how to make successful petitions and get their system in line.