Anything that Lawlor enacts short of what the U.S. Attorney General’s recommendations propose will have Conn. lose out on Byrne Law Enforcement funding, which, like Federal highway funds, are a carrot the Federal government uses to get State laws changed (This is one reason why all States are required to have an over-21 alcohol consumption age).

SORNA extends internet publication of registration info to all individuals, not just dangerous sex offenders like violent predators or child sex offenders.

SORNA has offense-based Tiers, which has a flaw: The child predator who pleads to Burglary I is off the registry, while the 18-year old kid with the 14-year old girlfriend, think consensual touching, C.G.S. 53-21(2) “Risk of Injury”, which is often charged, is branded a Tier II offender, has to register for 25 years, and is on the ‘net.

Worse off, the 16-year old juvenile who makes a mistake and touches a 12-year old, even if adjudicated as a juvenile offender, will have a predicate offense in the Tier I, with a lifetime classification as a “child molester” (The SORNA cutoff for juvenile offenders is 14!)

Even more bad news: If you have committed a predicate offense, and it has been considered “set aside” but a court sanction was imposed – think Accelerated Rehabilitation (Conn.) or Pre-Trial Intervention (N.J.) – SORNA mandates that this is a “conviction” for registration purposes:

“For example, the need to require registration would not be avoided by a jurisdiction’s having a procedure under which the convictions of sex offenders in certain categories (e.g., young adult sex offenders who satisfy certain criteria) are referred to as something other than “convictions,” or under which the convictions of such sex offenders may nominally be “vacated” or “set aside,” but the sex offender is nevertheless required to serve what amounts to a criminal sentence for the offense.”

[Emphasis mine].

Final SORNA Guidelines (source):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/pdfs/final_sornaguidelines.pdf

I’ll get back with more Conn. and N.J. specific registry comments time permitting…

I don’t know what other registries he’s talking about that employ this procedure or what the challenges have been, but it strikes me as rather problematic.

He said that in his editorial:

“Minnesota and other states have such a procedure, including due process protections, and the constitutionality has been successfully tested in the courts.”

Overall, I am in favor of positive changes to the registry, but, like anything else, whenever legislative changes are discussed, I am nervous. Would it be appropriate to remove many people from our registry? Yes. But I have serious doubts about our legislature’s motivation in “reforming” our registry requirements. Yay for the small number of lucky ones who will benefit, but yikes for the many who will end up worse off. More than a 10 year registry requirement? Allowing a board (made up of whom by the way??) to decide who has to register regardless of the particular conviction? These are not changes I am anxious to see happen.