You are here

NARSOL CT affiliate asks for meaningful reform

By Eric Bedner . . . The state Sentencing Commission is considering its legislative agenda, which includes making changes to the sex offender registry and reducing misdemeanor sentences by one day to prevent undocumented immigrants from being deported.

These and several other proposals were the subject of a public hearing Thursday at the Legislative Office Building.

One recommendation is to move from a conviction-based sex offender registry to a risk-based registry.

The categories of sex offenders who must register with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection based on the crime they were convicted of would remain the same, but the length of time on the registry, compliance requirements, and whether the information is public or accessible by only law enforcement would be determined by evaluating the registrant’s risk of re-offending.

Connecticut is currently one of the few states in the country that does not provide an opportunity for people to be removed from the list.

The public registry would be limited to a small number of high-risk people, and people would be allowed to petition to be removed from the list.

Amy Eppler Epstein, a lawyer with the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, said that in her experience working with colleagues in shelter and housing situations, she found that people were denied housing and ended up in homeless shelters because they were on the registry, even though they “clearly were not public dangers.”

The removal provision in the proposal would be prospective only, which some critics say is not enough.

Cindy Prizio, executive director of Connecticut for One Standard of Justice, spoke of a man on the registry who committed a crime when he was 14 years old, was tried in adult court, and received a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years before being granted clemency after six years.

He remains on the lifetime registry, and even with the proposed reforms, wouldn’t be removed for nearly a decade.

“We must request total retroactivity,” Prizio said. “Everyone must be reclassified. We cannot leave behind low-risk to no-risk people.”

She said her organization could not support the proposal as it currently stands.

Read the full article here at the Journal Inquirer.

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.
EMAIL
Facebook
Google+
https://narsol.org/2018/12/narsol-ct-affiliate-asks-for-meaningful-reform/
PINTEREST
LINKEDIN
YOUTUBE
RSS

Avatar

This topic contains 4 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Avatar Dustin 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #49843 Reply
    Avatar
    admin

    By Eric Bedner . . . The state Sentencing Commission is considering its legislative agenda, which includes making changes to the sex offender registry
    [See the full post at: NARSOL CT affiliate asks for meaningful reform]

  • #49874 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    Folks, there has been some good themes and topics on here and yes I do believe in justice and truth as everyone else. I also believe punishment must fit the crime but in a lot of this sex offender ordeal one has to wonder take the cagetory of sex offenders.

    Maybe we could all go with the saying double parking in one’s space which is sort of off the wall in itself or is it. We could also go with risk of re-offending, I wonder if lightening strikes twice in the same place.. but really what it all comes down to morals. Sure anyone can verbally rape someone but when police con with this pretend issue who is giving the red light or green light or who’s intent was it in the first place. Does not common sense play a factor in all this. The police knew what they were doing even if the victim was dumb. I’m still wondering if two wrongs dont’ make a right.

    I would tend to understand that a of a lot of this sex offender stuff is conning and bluffing to prevent and when its all said and done they type cast one as a sex-monster for life. No misdermeaner but a felony that incures jail time, imprisonment, probation, and don’t forget the fines and other obligations plus being typecast as an outcast of society if one doesn’t stand up to all this. Is that human nature to be typecasted like that. Reduction of sentence, I’m sure everyone is for that but who is high-risk and who is low-risk or is that like the alcoholic that repeats and repeats their offense or abuse. I wonder who actually offends others today.

    • #49987 Reply
      Avatar
      Tim

      @Saddles,
      If any hope of reform exists in the state of Connecticut it must come from within. They too must confront their leadership starting IMHO with Mr. Blumenthal, and followed immediately by Mr. Murphy. The is proof, in letter form, from Blumenthal encouraging Facebook to use the SOR electronic databases to discourage registrants from using FB altogether. Such collusion and coercion are illegal under U.S. law yet no one gets in trouble and so he gets away with using his office improperly.

      In my individual case state ignores a law excluding me (uncovering) by date.
      The date contained in SS304.15 1g(a) is December 23, 1993 which my conviction pre-dates 20MAY92. This law is simply ignored by LEO, DA, and the courts. Way down the rabbit hole we are, as per our leadership.

  • #50393 Reply
    Avatar
    Saddles

    Hey Tim, you know you make a very good point. While its hard to judge someone’s morals and vices are we not all sinners. The way that law enforcement go about this cat and mouse game of “Guess who’s coming to dinner” has a sexual base to it that leads one astray, or can lead one astray. Meaningfull reform does not include setting up people. Sure we all have to watch our words but leading one into temptation is not the way for these so called law enforcements to go about it.
    If thats the case than its a double jeopardy part on who’s inducing and who’s who’s conning one in this game of wits. In my own endeavor they wanted more pictures of myself instead of the standard regular picture of self that was sent. They asked about other pictures and I said, oh you mean dirty pictures. While giving a sensual or sexual story is bad enough when they ask you to get dirty via the internet, two wrongs dont’ make a right which is my case. I mean after all they are ministers of God and seem to want to hold everything against one.

    While all this sounds puzzling their is still one in authority. Now I know a lot on here have different circumstances and I thank NARSOL for bring this forum to light we all still have to overcome this devilish thing that man is throwing on some that appears to toss one a curve with this internet sex offender thing. Bringing out the good first is always good but when ministers of justice play a sinister harlot roles who is the guilty party in this two wrongs don’t’ make a right. Dies not one think truth is so important. Why do you think the sword of Justice is so important. I believe Robin has a pretty good understanding of all this to.

    I do believe all need to have meaningful reform in a lot of these types of situations or is someone using the sword in vain? Would not one say the truth will set you free.

  • #51131 Reply
    Avatar
    Dustin

    First and foremost, the registry is totally worthless for law enforcement or public safety purposes. If anyone can find one single circumstance where the registry played a role in solving or preventing any crime (other than status, parole, or probation violation) I will print out and eat every single page of the corresponding criminal case record. No amount of adjusting, streamlining, or reforming is going to make it anything but the detrimental waste of resources that it is. Reforming is only more wasteful – more resources used to “update” or “improve”, and makes no difference in community safety or recidivism.

    I love how some states legislate that registrants can petition for removal if they can show the court they pose no threat. Aside from the impossibility of proving a negative, it’s still at the court’s discretion, and very few judges grant removal petitions regardless of whatever showing is made (particularly in election years).

    That said, if the registry is so useful and necessary, here’s a novel thought. 97% of new sex crime is committed by those not registered, so the state should have the burden of showing that any given person convicted for a sex offense is likely to be among the EXTREMELY LOW number of registrants who do in order to register them.

Reply To: NARSOL CT affiliate asks for meaningful reform
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - 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.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post links or email addresses..
  • *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="">