NJ: Recent ruling makes it harder for convicted sex offenders to petition for removal.
A New Jersey appellate court ruled that individuals seeking removal must substantively prove they no longer pose a threat to public safety in any way, not just sexual reoffense.
A Middlesex County judge granted two men’s petitions on the basis that they were not a substantial risk of sexual reoffense, 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 and ruled that the full criminal histories need to be considered.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sasha >>> Yes it’s called “Burden of Persuasion” and the burden is or should be on the prosecutors. After reading the court ruling I can see why these 2 had them overturned. Middlesex county is a relaxed county on their rulings more then most of the others. My Ex Post Facto Tier challenge was in Middlesex County back in 1995 from a Classification assessment of Tier Two by another county into a Tier Classification One retroactive Civil Judgement. But it didn’t matter because I was unmasked 3 years later by Lee County Sheriff Dept. You will know about this all soon enough. July 25th is the projected date. It’s the 30th Anniversary that New Jersey ruled it was Constitutional. I’m exposing the punishment they hid 2 days later for 30 years. They know it’s coming…
I find it hard to believe that this would stand. How could an ordinary citizen prove that not going to be substantially dangerous? Isn’t that up to the burden of the prosecutor? Also, given that the fact there are only convicted of that crime that placed them on the registry, how can they say you have to prove that you’re not going to commit any other crimes? This is all a farce and it was always written in the wording of some registries. They always stated especially at the highest level that he poses a dangerous risk to reoffend, some say he poses a danger because it’s high level. That leaves it open to interpretation. I remember a person who went to a mental health facility for help. They saw that he was on the registry and they escorted him out because they said he was a danger. That’s just a catch-all phrase to include anything could possibly happen. And that is the problem. When you mention a person is on the registry to a community, they think more than just an assault related in a sexual nature, they believe that this person has superhuman strength and could do any crime without any restraints whatsoever. And that is false. I hope this gets overturned even though it might be pertaining to those individuals, but it opens the door for an abuse. If this is going to remain to stand, then this is substantial, and maybe then it is considered for the punishment because it’s tied directly to the conviction and the action. It’s no longer separate.