You are here

Connecticut considers substantial cut to state’s sex offender registry

HARTFORD – Connecticut’s sex offender registry could get a lot smaller under a new plan.

Under the plan, a Sex Offender Registry Board would decide who has to register and for how long.  Registered sex offenders could also petition to be removed or placed on a non-public list.

The Connecticut Sentencing Commission heard hours of testimony on it today.

The Center for Sexual Assault Crisis in Stamford thinks the changes make sense.  The victims group says the overhaul would narrow the sex offender registry to the people who really need to be on the list, without punishing those who don’t.

If the sentencing commission signs off on the plan, it will ask state lawmakers to approve it when they go back to Hartford in February.

Source

This topic contains 7 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Larry 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #29387 Reply

    Don Campbell

    Michigan needs to change their Registry to risk based. There are over 43,000 on our registry. 1 in approximately 118 males in MI are on the registry.

    • #29447 Reply

      Candice

      Same here in Missouri. The law was changed at the beginning of 2017 where ALL sex offenders are treated as though they are all violent predators. They even started putting all of them on life time monitoring (Probation Officer), GPS monitoring for LIFE, sex offender ‘therapy’ every week for life, take polygraph test (not sure how often), and register every 3 months. This was suposted to be for those with priors, however, authorities have been doing this to ALL of them. Some have fought this and currently do not have to do it but lawmakers are pushing to make it universal. And if the person moves out of Missouri they STILL have to where the GPS monitoring device. They aslo have to pay for both being on life time probation and the fee for the GPS. Most end up back in prison because of violations, NOT reoffending. Most of the violations where either because they could not afford the fees (can’t find jobs), refusing to register due to harassment, or because of failing the polygraph queston of ‘have you thought about…’. Thinking something and doing it is two totally different things. If they can put you in prison for just ‘thinking’ something then EVERYONE would be in prison.

      • #29764 Reply

        Tim Lawver

        Ma’am,

        It may not stop, even when they implant microchips into offenders. While no such law exists today we do see the use of ankle bracelets, which aid in a similar end.

  • #29452 Reply

    Larry

    I agree Michigan should take a really hard look at this idea. Well, actually all states need to step up and make sense of how they are handling their registry. Granted there are four tiers, but they each cover so many different areas and points of the law it make a minor mistake look major. Yes, small or large it was wrong. But do you want to jail your young son for showing his sister he’s different than her? No!! How about no milk and cookies for one week and to bed an hour early. He will catch on pretty quick. My Point, too many people are on a 25 or life time registry for something not serious like rape or child related. If we can get the law makers to understand this, maybe not as hard since so many of them are getting caught with their own pants down in the wrong place. With organizations like NARSOL, we may start seeing a dim light at the end of the tunnel. Bless all!!

    • #29760 Reply

      Tim Lawver

      Larry,
      What you describe is called, ” mission creep”. Iam sure you know the term, but some don’t. The SORs began to protect kids but the scope expanded rapidly.

      The point is SCOTUS made an exception with the state’s regulatory regime in 2003 (Alaska, Conn), because of the ” grave risk posed to the vulnerable population by the deviant.” Especially, the repeat offender! SCOTUS UPHELD A STATE’S RIGHT.

      However, that state right was not specifically or expressly extended the the FED. The FED has unconstitutionally annexed the scope into their jurisdiction, specifically the fed is delving into the day to day lives of citizens. This use of the “special interest” is a convenient way to circumvent constitutional separation of powers protections. This has been the case with every form of government ever conceived by mankind. The founders did their best but……….? Republic lost?

      With that argument at hand the state’s were able to avoid ex post and due process claims. I can not imagine a time when a state WOUND NOT claim “public interest of safety” when violating ex-post or process protections. It is an empty argument, simply because it will always be claimed by individuals writing law that is ON IT’S FACE applied retrospectively. To paraphrase Justice Stevens…that the touchstone itself ( the initial notice of conviction) is both necessary AND sufficient to justify the new burdens clearly implicates a protected liberty interest.

      It also was imposed and applied on those who had not waived rights via plea agreement including the right to defense in civil claims. Civil claims can occur without conviction, like OJ, but he was afforded defence in the subsequent civil claim. Many pre Megan’s law defendants were absolutely denied the OPPORTUNITY to keep their names off the ELECTRONIC LIST.

      The most important aspect of the regime is that it implicates both the use of a database AND palpable individual freedom from government overpowering individual liberty interests via the pen. What is most concerning is the power of the database in the hands of the financially and politically motivated class.

  • #29488 Reply

    Maestro

    Ha! My state. And just what types of offenses are they considering removing from the registry?
    The prosecutor in my case recognized my offense as “consensual”, albeit illegal. So does this make age difference relationships worthy of registration? Or is this most likely going to only be done for those “age appropriate” couples who decided to be adventurous and have sex in a night club restroom?

    I have no faith in Connecticut. This is truly a state with its head firmly planted up its ass.

  • #29610 Reply

    RM

    From the video, it seems that they’ll just change from a conviction based registry to a risk based registry.

  • #30227 Reply

    Mike

    Ha even The Center for Sexual Assult Crisis says ” then those who stay on the list and not PUNISH those who dont????? Wow

Reply To: Connecticut considers substantial cut to state’s sex offender registry
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Do not promote your business, your blog, your website, or any other business, blog, or website.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">