You are here

CT Sentencing Commission recommends shortening registration period for some

By Jack Kramer . . . A proposal that would allow some on the sex offender registry to petition to shorten their registration period or apply for removal from the registry was unanimously approved Thursday by the Sentencing Commission.

The Sentencing Commission also approved recommending reducing misdemeanor sentencing from 365 days to 364 days. That one day would give immigration judges more discretion in deportation hearings. They decided to continue to study the issue of a constitutional amendment on pre-trial release and detention that would deny release to high-risk defendants and deny

A proposal that would allow some on the sex offender registry to petition to shorten their registration period or apply for removal from the registry was unanimously approved Thursday by the Sentencing Commission.

The Sentencing Commission also approved recommending reducing misdemeanor sentencing from 365 days to 364 days. That one day would give immigration judges more discretion in deportation hearings. They decided to continue to study the issue of a constitutional amendment on pre-trial release and detention that would deny release to high-risk defendants and deny detention for lack of funds to secure a bail bond.

The commission’s recommendations will be forwarded to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the General Assembly for the start of the 2018 legislative session.

On the sex registry proposal, it would give those on the registry an opportunity to petition to shorten their registration period or apply for removal from the public registry. In order to do so the registrant would have to show that they have reduced their risk to the community.

Under the recommendation a person could be on the registry for shorter periods than under the current system, and others would be on for longer periods.

In order to petition the registrant would have to show that they have reduced their risk to the community. Under the new system a person could be on the registry for shorter periods than under the current system, and others would be on for longer periods.

Thomas Ullman, a former public defender from New Haven, said it was a “good proposal.”

“This can only help people who are stuck on the registry who we all believe should not be on,” Ullman said. He said being on the registry affects those on the registry’s “ability to get housing, jobs — it leads to criminality.”

Judge Robert Devlin, co-chair of the Sentencing Commission, acknowledged that “anything involved with sex crimes is controversial.”

However, Devlin added, the proposed changes are good because it pushes the sex offender registry from an “offense-based system to a risk-based system.”

Robert Farr, co-chair of the Sentencing Commission and a former lawmaker, said the changes proposed are fair for everyone.

“It’s not a tougher on crime or easier on crime legislation,” Farr said. “It’s a smarter on crime.”

Read more

The REPORT, recommendations are on pages 5-14.
Connecticut Sentencing Commission–A Study of the Sex Offender Sentencing, Registration, and Management System – December 2017
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/Sex_Offender_Report_12.1.2017Final_edits.pdf

Power Point summary of report and recommendations, Oct. 13, 2017
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/Special_Committee_on_Sex_Offender_10.13.17.pdf

Connecticut for One Standard of Justice | Dec. 11, 2017
Comments submitted by Connecticut for One Standard of Justice, Inc. on proposed Reform of the Sex Offender Registry and other recommendations of the Special Committee on Sex Offenders: This has been an incredibly short sighted and missed opportunity to bring science to bear on sex offender policy that would save Connecticut money, lower recidivism rates, reduce sexual violence and more closely conform state policy to what victims both want and need. MORE:
http://www.ctosj.org/2017/12/14/connecticut-sentencing-commission-public-hearing-december-11-2017/

Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Special Committee on Sex Offenders – member list, meeting minutes, background information and other materials
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/cwp/view.asp?a=4706&q=569200

Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Special Committee on Sex Offenders – 2016 Interim Report
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/SCSO_Interim_Report.pdf

Assessment, Treatment, and Risk Management of Persons Who have Sexually Offended: A Report to the Connecticut Sentencing Commission—June 22, 2017
http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/lib/ctsc/CT_Sentencing_Commission_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

Connecticut Sentencing Commission, Special Committee on Sex Offenders: Public Hearing on the Registration, Management and Sentencing of Sex Offenders – Jan. 25, 2017
Information and written testimony: http://www.ct.gov/ctsc/cwp/view.asp?a=4706&q=590138
Video: http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=13675

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Robin 4 weeks ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #30153 Reply

    Bobby

    “This can only help people who are stuck on the registry who we all believe should not be on,” Ullman said. He said being on the registry affects those on the registry’s “ability to get housing, jobs — it leads to criminality.”

    “It’s not a tougher on crime or easier on crime legislation,” Farr said. “It’s a smarter on crime.”

    I wish they all would think like this. ” sigh”, hopefully that day will get here soon.

  • #30199 Reply

    Maestro

    This is my state and I’m interested to know what they deem “non-violent” offenses since the sex laws in CT all carry the word “Assault”.

    Sexual “Assault” in the 2nd degree is when a person engages in sexual relations with someone under 16 but over 13.
    And also if the person is of legal age but the “actor” (in other words, the perpetrator) is a person in a position of power (couch, teacher, etc).
    These types of relationships are NOT VIOLENT yet we call it “assault”.
    Perhaps changing the wording to “misconduct”, as it would be misconducting yourself sexually with a younger ‘grey area’ aged person and not assault.
    When the public hears the word “assault” they automatically assume the ‘victim’ was beaten or forced, and that’s just not always the case.

    Remove the word ASSAULT from the sex crimes general statutes. Just like some states refer to it as “Rape 1st degree”, “Rape 2nd”, etc. From my understanding, “Rape” in the 2nd degree is the same as CT general statute for “sexual assault in the 2nd”.

  • #31212 Reply

    Saddles

    I am with maestro on that one… I to would like to know that they consider non-violent. Would it have to be with voice, rage, talking in inappropriately to someone or someone trying to pull a bait and switch number on one. Maestro has a good point if people caught that means and measure. I have often wondered that.
    All these states can come up a violent and non-violent measure. Now I believe they classify all of them violent to make paper-work easier or something.

    I guess that would have to be some very worse ordeal to be deemed to be violent. If that’s the case armed and dangerous would have a common ring to it but remember we are talking about the sex offender.

Reply To: CT Sentencing Commission recommends shortening registration period for some
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="">