The New Jersey Appellate Division issued a ruling clarifying that sex offenders must prove they pose no threat to public safety—not just that they’re unlikely to reoffend sexually.
A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that individuals seeking removal from the state’s sex offender registry must prove they are not a danger to the public in any way, not just that they are unlikely to commit another sex crime.
The ruling, which sets a new legal precedent in New Jersey, stems from two cases involving men convicted of sex offenses decades ago who later asked to be removed from the state’s sex offender registry and released from lifetime supervision.
Under Megan’s Law, individuals convicted of certain sex crimes must register with law enforcement and, depending on their risk level, may be subject to community notification to help protect the public.
A Middlesex County judge granted both men’s requests—but the state appealed, arguing the court failed to consider their full criminal histories.
The Appellate Division found that the lower court was wrong to focus only on the risk of future sexual offenses.
Instead, the appeals court said judges must consider the person’s full criminal history — including violent or nonsexual crimes, substance abuse and domestic violence — when deciding whether they still pose a threat to the public.
A TRUE STORY: I am a former attorney who operated a program for those convicted of sex offenses in the past. One time about 23 years ago in Broward County, Florida, we had a client who was on probation with sex offense conviction conditions who filed for early termination of probation. During the court heaing the Prosecutor calls the Defendant’s therapist, a Doctor Psychologist, to the witness stand, and then poses this question to him (verbatim) “With your years of counseling the Defendant, do you feel that the defendant will commit another sex crime or is there a probability of the Defendant commiting another sex crime, and if there is a probability, is this probaility on the low or high side of the scale?”. The Doctor Psychologist then turns his head and looks at the Judge and asks the Judge if he can ask a question before he aswers the Prosecutor’s question. The Judge alllowed it. Then, the Doctor Psychologist turns back to the prosecutor and says directly looking the male prosecutor in the face “Mr. Prosecutor, can you tell me if you will commit a sex crime in the future or if there is a probability that you would commit a sex crime in the future?” With that question, the Prosecutor was taken by surprise and stood silent for a few minuted and perplexed by the question. The Judge then interjected and directed the Prosecutor to answer the question. The Prosecutor then replied “I have never been accused of, charged with, or convicted of a sexual-related crime.” The Judge then says to the Prosecutor that he did not answer the question and to answer the question. The Prosecutor then says “No, I will never commit a sex crime!” And the Judge then said “Mr. Prosecutor, can you prove it?”, to which the Judge then turned to the Defendant and his attorney and says “Motion for Early Termination… GRANTED!”
Okay. If all those other unrelated things are up for consideration, that tells me there should be a registry for all those other things.
This… makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I thought that the entire point of the registry (other than being punishment, and a means to destroy the lives of everyone on it) was to “protect the public” from exclusively sex related offenses (although, obviously, it actually does not, and can not do that anyway)… otherwise, it wouldn’t just be a registry for those who commit “sex” crimes, but rather, a registry for anyone who commits any sort of crime.
However, now it seems the courts will use anything and everything as an excuse to keep people on the registry for as long as they can, including behavior or past offenses that have nothing at all to do with the reason they are on the registry in the first place. Basically, the courts are saying that someone is “guilty until they prove themselves innocent”… except, of course, this still only applies to those who are on the registry. As far as I know, the same standard does not apply to anyone who has committed any other type of offense, including murderers, drug dealers, etc.
This whole registry scheme has long since gone completely off the rails, with the throttle cranked to maximum.
Proving a negative is impossible. I won’t ever get into a traffic accident. I won’t trip and fall. I won’t see that judge in a coffee shop and beat the holy crap out of them. See? impossible to prove……..
There is already a case, People v. Thai, that states that the State has to prove you are a future danger, which they can’t
I’ll make three predictions that tomorrow I’ll run into traffic and several cars will be riding my bumper more than once between Augusta, ME and Maryland. I’ll also know that I won’t be committing any sexual related crimes on the way home.
I wish the state of Wisconsin would’ve considered my lack of non sex crimes before sentencing me to 3 years in prison for viewing pictures
So now they’re playing hypothetical and theoretical “what if” nonsense to deny relief which is just spit-balling emotional paranoia. They’re departing from the scope of the law as it applies to the constitution and entering “are you gonna be a ‘good boy’ if we let you go” merit system territory.
These people, jfc…