Comments on: NJ: Recent ruling makes it harder for convicted sex offenders to petition for removal.

By: Megans Law's John Doe

Megans Law's John Doe — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 20:33:24 +0000

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…

By: Megans Law's John Doe

Megans Law's John Doe — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 20:17:38 +0000

In reply to Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com. After reading this I can understand why they were overturned on appeal. Middlesex County is a more lenient county then some of the others in New Jersey. I know, my retroactive Tier One classification was out of Middlesex County back in 1995. This is what is gonna burn FDLE, they know it's coming now.

By: Sasha

Sasha — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 18:58:56 +0000

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.

By: Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com

Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:52:09 +0000

https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2025/a2878-23a2880-23.pdf

Link to the actual court ruling

By: Megans Law's John Doe

Megans Law's John Doe — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 18:10:24 +0000

Funny seeing this is out of New Jersey ( ME ) the 3rd Circuit where this ALL started. ( Not Alaska ) Here is their problem, It’s called “Burden of Persuasion” They pulled this on us with the Ex Post Facto “Due Process” which was unconstitutional in the Federal 3rd Circuit ruling 8/20/1997 E.B. v Verniero. “The Due Process Clause requires the state at such a proceeding to shoulder the burden of justifying the classification and notification plan by clear and convincing evidence.”

The burden should be on the prosecutor to show they are a risk. The defendant should not have to prove they are not a risk. This will get struck down or changed in the 3rd Circuit.

By: Bwj

Bwj — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 16:33:08 +0000

In reply to dr. Sexual recidivism rates are generally lower than general crime recidivism rates. A study examining a sample of sex offenders released from prison in 1994 found a sexual recidivism rate of about 5% over a 3-year follow-up period. Research suggests that recidivism rates can be as low as 2%-8% in more recent samples.

By: TS

TS — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:07:01 +0000

In reply to No end. A full rescission would be nice but they'd whittle it down in the end to those who make up the 3-5% (report depending) the rest of the 95-97% loathe since they make life more difficult and keep afloat the thinking of the ignorant folks who don't like the stats to begin with.

By: TS

TS — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 15:02:36 +0000

In reply to DVC. Agree with you @DVC

By: dr

dr — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 14:20:23 +0000

In reply to EdC. Sexual recidivism refers to the tendency of individuals convicted of sexual offenses to re-offend, engaging in further sexual crimes after release from prison or other correctional settings. It's a specific type of recidivism, which generally refers to the relapse into criminal behavior after punishment.

By: EdC

EdC — Tue, 08 Jul 2025 12:50:58 +0000

The article’s title is somewhat deceiving in that the court only made it harder for those particular men to get off of the registry. The vast majority of former sex offenders lead law-abiding lives and don’t reoffend sexually or otherwise. This constitutes substantial evidence that a registrant should be relieved of registration. The appellate court may have inadvertently blunted the prosecution’s argument in most cases.

The article asserts that the court’s decision requires registrants to “substantively prove they no longer pose a threat to public safety in any way, not just sexual reoffense.” That does not describe a standard of proof but leaves the decision to the whims of a particular judge. The court was not quoted in the article and I wonder if it actually used that phrase in its decision or whether it resulted from creative journalism.