New Jersey Section 2C:14-12 – Conditions placed upon release of certain defendants.

New Jersey’s Controversial Law on Releasing Sex Offenders

New Jersey has a unique law called Section 2C:14-12 that allows judges to place special conditions on people charged with certain sex crimes if they are released before trial. This controversial law aims to protect the public, but critics argue it goes too far by severely limiting freedoms of those not yet convicted. Let’s take a closer look at what the law does, who it applies to, and the debate around it.

What Does the Law Do?

Section 2C:14-12 allows pretrial release conditions for those charged with aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, kidnapping or criminal restraint if the victim is under age 16. It lets judges place restrictions such as:

• Requiring defendants to avoid contact with the victim, their family and any witnesses
• Banning defendants from going to certain locations like schools and playgrounds
• Putting defendants under house arrest or electronic monitoring
• Requiring regular reporting to pretrial services

Judges can also order defendants to get psychiatric treatment, go to drug rehab, abstain from drinking alcohol or using recreational drugs, and other conditions aimed at public safety and rehabilitation.

Who Does This Law Apply To?

The law only applies to defendants age 18 or older who are charged with certain sex crimes against minors under 16. It does not apply simply based on the type of offense charged, but requires prosecutors to make a motion arguing why pretrial release conditions are needed in a specific case.

Defense attorneys can argue against the proposed conditions, but ultimately judges decide whether to impose them and what restrictions are appropriate. Critics argue many conditions are imposed routinely without enough examination of the facts of each case.

Balancing Public Safety Against Individual Rights

Supporters of Section 2C:14-12 say it helps prevent additional sexual violence by keeping defendants away from minors and requiring mental health treatment. However, critics argue it punishes people before they’ve been convicted and gives judges too much unchecked authority.

The ACLU has challenged the law, arguing it violates defendants’ due process rights and presumption of innocence. They also argue there’s little proof the special conditions actually improve public safety when defendants are already barred from contacting victims.

Defense lawyers also worry lengthy pretrial release conditions can pressure defendants into taking plea deals rather than endure restrictions for months or years while awaiting trial. And electronic monitoring costs must be paid by defendants, raising concerns about equal justice.

Looking at the Pros and Cons

Reasonable people can disagree on where to strike the right balance between public safety and individual liberties. Here are some pros and cons that have been raised about New Jersey’s approach:

Potential Pros:

• Keeping defendants away from minors may prevent additional victims
• Treatment requirements could help rehabilitate defendants
• Electronic monitoring alerts authorities if defendants violate conditions
• Extra supervision may deter defendants from trying to obstruct justice
• Victims may feel safer knowing defendants’ movements are limited

Potential Cons:

• House arrest for months or years is a severe restriction before conviction
• Stigmatizing defendants as sex offenders pre-trial even if acquitted
• Disrupting work, schooling, family obligations
• Favoring prosecution by pressuring plea deals
• Infringing on rights like due process and presumption of innocence
• Lacking funding for adequate defense counsel in complex cases
• Hurting rehabilitation by isolating defendants from community

More research is needed on the impacts of pretrial release conditions in sex offense cases. But for now, the debate continues on whether New Jersey’s approach goes too far or not far enough in restricting freedoms before trial.

Looking at Other State Laws

New Jersey is not unique in allowing special pretrial conditions for certain defendants. Many states have added sex offender registration requirements for those merely charged with certain crimes. Some states also impose mandatory pretrial GPS monitoring.

However, New Jersey’s law is considered especially stringent given the broad range of restrictions judges can impose. The bail reform law also shifted the burden onto defendants to “rebut a presumption of pretrial detention” if prosecutors request it.

By comparison, New York’s law imposing pretrial conditions on sex crime defendants was struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional infringement on rights. The debate continues nationwide on balancing safety and constitutional principles in pretrial release decisions.

The Path Ahead

New Jersey’s pretrial restrictions for those accused of sex offenses against minors are likely to remain controversial. Both sides make important points about preventing sexual violence versus upholding individual liberties.

Perhaps there can be progress by focusing on the most troubling aspects. For example, requiring defendants to pay for GPS monitoring seems unfair before conviction. And allowing blanket restrictions without examining each case’s specifics is questionable.

With care and nuance, New Jersey may be able to craft an approach that protects the public without going to punitive extremes on those not yet convicted. But for now, the debate continues on how to ensure fairness, safety and justice for all.