New Jersey Section 2C:43-19 – Adoption of rules at such time, or with such effective date, or without presentation at judicial conference, as may be provided in joint resolution

New Jersey Section 2C:43-19 – An Overview of the Adoption of Rules for Criminal Sentencing

Section 2C:43-19 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice provides the process for adopting rules regarding criminal sentencing in the state. This section allows the New Jersey Supreme Court to adopt these rules without needing approval from the legislature in certain situations. Let’s take a closer look at what this section covers and its implications.

Background on Criminal Sentencing Rules

In New Jersey, criminal sentences are guided by the state’s sentencing code located in Title 2C. This code provides the authorized punishments and sentencing ranges for different offenses based on degree of crime. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court is also granted authority to adopt more specific sentencing rules and guidelines beyond what is in the statutory code.

These additional rules allow the courts to standardize sentences and provide consistent punishment across the state. The rules may cover things like aggravating and mitigating factors, presumptive sentences, and even recommended sentences for specific offenses. Without sentencing rules, each judge would have full discretion on sentences which could lead to inconsistencies.

The Rule Adoption Process

Section 2C:43-19 lays out the process for the New Jersey Supreme Court to adopt new or modified sentencing rules. Typically, the court must present proposed rules at the annual Judicial Conference before adopting them. This allows input from lower court judges.

After presentation, the rules are then announced publicly and copies are delivered to the legislature. The legislature then has 60 days to review the rules and can cancel them through a joint resolution if they desire. If the 60 day period passes without cancellation, the rules go into effect.

However, section 2C:43-19 allows the court to bypass this standard process and adopt rules immediately without presentation in certain cases. This can be done if the legislature passes a joint resolution allowing immediate adoption. The resolution may also specify an alternative effective date.

Bypassing the Legislature

The ability to adopt rules without legislative approval is concerning to some legal experts. Rules adopted this way do not receive public comment or legislative oversight.

Supporters argue the legislature can always cancel the rules later through joint resolution. But opponents point out the court can adopt controversial rules before the legislature has time to react. This essentially allows sentencing policy to be changed without the traditional checks and balances.

However, the New Jersey Supreme Court has defended this power by citing their constitutional authority over court rules. And the legislature has rarely canceled rules adopted under 2C:43-19. So in practice, the court has significant ability to alter sentencing rules without legislative action.

Notable Examples of Rules Adopted Under 2C:43-19

Here are some examples of major sentencing rules the New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted under the immediate adoption provision of 2C:43-19:

• Truth-in-Sentencing Rules (1997) – These rules greatly reduced parole eligibility and required convicts to serve at least 85% of their sentence. This eliminated parole for many violent crimes. The rules were adopted without presentation to the legislature.
• Sex Offender Sentencing Rules (2002) – These rules dramatically increased sentences for sex crimes and included mandatory minimums and parole supervision for life. The court cited an “emergency situation” to adopt them immediately.
• Expanded Drug-Free Zone Rules (2009) – The court increased penalties for drug crimes near schools and parks. The rules were adopted without legislative review and took effect just 30 days later.

Criticism from Legal Experts

While the New Jersey Supreme Court defends its authority under 2C:43-19, many legal experts have criticized the immediate adoption provision. Here are some common criticisms:

• Allows unchecked power and lack of public accountability for the court.
• Reduces traditional legislative oversight of criminal justice policy.
• Eliminates important public feedback from lower court judges and the bar association.
• Enables adoption of rules influenced by political pressure or media coverage rather than objective data.
• Risks inconsistent and emotional policy changes after high-profile crimes.
• Circumvents the political process and full debate on controversial issues.

On the other side, supporters argue the court uses this power judiciously and mainly for procedural rules or emergency situations. But critics counter that many major substantive sentencing changes have occurred without legislative review.