ND: Senate passes bill studying length of time on sex offender registry

Source: kfyrtv.com 3/28/25

BISMARCK, N.D. (KFYR) – People who are considered “low-risk” sex offenders are required to be registered for at least 15 years. A House bill looks to see if that’s too long.

Originally, House Bill 1231 called for the minimum to be at seven years before you could petition for removal. Senators amended the bill to make it a study to figure out if any lowering is appropriate.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee say there was too much debate to be confident in enacting immediate change.

“We have some issues to look at. That’s why we proposed this as a shall study [bill]. It’s that important of an issue,” said Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinberg.

The House will need to vote on the change.

Watch the video

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

Likely another glorious example of government waste. There are volumes of existing research showing the registry accomplishes absolutely nothing, and virtually none showing otherwise.

Registry supporters simply won’t accept the near-certain results of this proposed study. I anticipate their take will be something like “Well, if lifetime registration is ineffective, let’s register the next five generations of their family in case they are reincarnated.”

Why re-create the wheel when several states have already done the research for you like NJ did with a 20-year study. Is the ND study going to take another 20-years to come to the same conclusion? It is asinine that states do not believe other states’ research work. Why not ask CA about it’s transformation from all lifetime to its three tiered registry? Just have ACSOL provide the ND state with all of its documentation and how the registry population is constantly shrinking.