National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Statement Sex Offender Policy Statement

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Statement Sex Offender Policy Statement

On February 24, 2007 NACDL adopted a detailed policy statement as to how society should deal with the rights of sex offenders:

I.  NACDL opposes the death penalty as a sanction for sex offenders.

II. NACDL opposes mandatory minimum sentences.

III. NACDL opposes sex offender registration and public notification laws. If employed at all, sex offender registries should classify sex offenders on the basis of risk, with full due process of law.  Public/community notification provisions should be reserved for “High Risk” sex offenders.

IV. NACDL opposes civil commitment laws because they punish offenders who have paid their debt to society. If employed at all, sex offender civil commitment statutes should provide a full panoply of due process rights including the right to a jury trial, the right to confront adverse witnesses, the right to present evidence, rules of evidence, a high burden of proof on the government and a process for review and discharge which levels the burden squarely on the government.

V. NACDL opposes residence restrictions because such laws and ordinances do not provide effective community protection and threaten offender stability and reintegration into society.

VI. Sex offender treatment and rehabilitation programs should be adequately funded and available both in our prisons and in the community. Such programs should not include mandatory polygraph examinations and should respect Fifth Amendment rights.

VII. Children are different.

The policy titles above are expanded in the actual statement located here.

HAT TIP: a public defender

Comments

[Jay]

The state of MA considered liberal due to media and other pressures has decided to impose GPS restrictions on all sex offense cases transferred from out of state without giving individual people the the right to appeal. They do not follow the probation restrictions as documented by other states. This is an absolute abuse of power and taking away civil liberties of the person on probation. In addition they place severe travel restrictions which jepordize peoples jobs and means to make a living.