Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:7-16 – Authorized use of disclosed information; prohibited uses.

New Jersey Law Allows Limited Use of Sex Offender Registry Information

New Jersey has strict laws regarding sex offender registration and community notification. While the goal of these laws is to enhance public safety, there are concerns about misuse of the information. New Jersey Section 2C:7-16 aims to strike a balance by allowing limited authorized uses of the registry while prohibiting harassment or discrimination.

Background of Sex Offender Registration Laws

In 1994, New Jersey enacted Megan’s Law which established a sex offender registry and community notification system. All convicted sex offenders must register with local law enforcement and provide extensive personal information including name, address, place of employment, vehicle information, and details of the offense. This information is entered into a statewide registry maintained by the New Jersey State Police.

Megan’s Law also requires law enforcement to notify the public about certain registered sex offenders living in the community. The type and scope of notification depends on the offender’s risk of re-offense:

• Tier 1 (Low Risk) – Schools and victims are notified
• Tier 2 (Moderate Risk) – Schools, licensed daycares, summer camps, registered community organizations, and victims within the municipality are notified
• Tier 3 (High Risk) – Same as Tier 2 plus members of the public likely to encounter the offender are notified

While well-intentioned, broad community notification has led to issues like harassment, loss of employment, and vigilantism against offenders trying to reintegrate into society after serving their sentence.

What Does Section 2C:7-16 Authorize?

Recognizing the potential for misuse, the New Jersey legislature enacted Section 2C:7-16 to only authorize certain uses of the registry information. Under this law, the sex offender registry can be used to:

• Protect vulnerable populations like children, elderly, and disabled from potential harm
• Conduct research on sex offenses and re-offense rates, subject to approval by an institutional review board
• Assist law enforcement investigations into criminal or suspicious acts
• Screen current or prospective employees/volunteers who care for or supervise children, elderly, or disabled
• Notify the public per Megan’s Law, but not beyond what is required
• Allow social networking sites to cross-check users against the registry

Schools, camps, daycares, and other youth-serving organizations are permitted to use the registry to screen employees and volunteers. However, housing authorities and landlords cannot use the registry to deny housing, and employers outside of childcare cannot use it to deny employment.

What Does Section 2C:7-16 Prohibit?

This law also prohibits use of the registry to:

• Harass, intimidate, threaten, or otherwise interfere with any registered offender’s quality of life or rights
• Injure or discriminate against a registered offender regarding housing, employment, access to education, or participation in any state program
• Promote, advocate, or agree with any policy to harass or discriminate against offenders
• Disclose registry information outside of authorized purposes
• Use registry information for the purpose of soliciting or fundraising
• Use registry information for any commercial purposes

These provisions aim to prevent misuse of the registry to harass, threaten, or discriminate against offenders who have already served their sentence. While public safety is paramount, offenders have a right to rebuild their lives after punishment.

Implications and Controversies

Section 2C:7-16 attempts to balance public safety needs with the rights of convicted offenders, but controversies remain.

Pros:

• Allows screening of offenders from working with vulnerable groups
• Research shows registries may deter some first-time offenses
• Provides awareness to better protect children from sexual abuse

Cons:

• Evidence on preventing re-offense is mixed
• Excess public shaming may increase recidivism
• Non-sexual criminals may get less scrutiny than sex offenders
• Information may be outdated if offender doesn’t update registry
• Difficult for offenders to reintegrate into society and find housing/jobs

There are also concerns that registries reinforce racial bias. Black and Latino offenders tend to receive harsher sentences and supervision than white offenders for similar crimes.

Looking Ahead

New Jersey continues to grapple with best practices for sex offender management. Section 2C:7-16 attempts to strike a reasonable balance, but many believe the registries still go too far. There are efforts to make the information less public and focus on rehabilitation over punishment. However, victims’ rights advocates argue the registries should remain public to allow people to protect themselves and their families. This debate over safety versus second chances will likely continue as long as sex offender registries exist.

References

Prescott, J. J., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notification laws affect criminal behavior? Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 161-206. https://doi.org/10.1086/658483

Caldwell, M. F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender recidivism. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 54(2), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306624X08330016

Jeglic, E. L., Mercado, C. C., & Levenson, J. S. (2012). The prevalence and correlates of depression and hopelessness among sex offenders subject to community notification and residence restriction legislation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9096-9

Starr, S. B. (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66(4), 803-872. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/evidence-based-sentencing-and-the-scientific-rationalization-of-discrimination/