Search Results for: new jersey

Split NJ Supreme Court holds sex offender GPS tracking is punishment subject to ex post facto limits

As reported in this local article, headlined “Some sex offenders can’t be forced to wear GPS monitors, N.J. Supreme Court rules,” the top state court in the Garden State issued a significant constitutional ruling holding that New Jersey cannot force sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devises if they were convicted before the monitoring program was signed into law seven years ago. The court voted 4-3 to uphold an appellate panel’s decision that said it was unconstitutional for the state Parole Board to require George C. Riley to wear the ankle monitor when he was released from prison in 2009 after serving 23 years for attempted sexual assault of a minor.

Justice Barry Albin wrote that Riley, 81, of Eatontown, should not be subject to the 2007 law because it constitutes an additional punishment that was not included in the sentence he already served. The Court agreed with the lower court that the “retroactive application” of the GPS program to Riley violates the ex post facto clauses in the U.S. and state Constitutions, which safeguard against imposing “additional punishment to an already completed crime.” The court also rejected the state’s argument that the GPS monitor is not punitive but “only civil and regulatory.”

“Parole is a form of punishment under the Constitution,” Albin wrote for the high court. “SOMA is essentially parole supervision for life by another name.” He added that “the disabilities and restraints placed on Riley through twenty -four-hour GPS monitoring enabled by a tracking device fastened to his ankle could hardly be called ‘minor and indirect.’”

The full ruling in Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, No. A-94-11 (NJ Sept. 22, 2014) is available at this link.

–Read full article at Sentencing Law and Policy.

When banks ask loan applicants about their arrest record

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition reports that its evaluation of small business loan applications from a sample of seven banks in Washington, DC revealed that “some lenders discriminate against applicants who have been charged at any time in their lives with a criminal offense.”  A comment on the NCRC website proposes that these banks consider applicants to be “a lending risk for having been ‘ever charged’ with any crime, other than a minor vehicle violation, no matter when it occurred.”  It goes on to argue that “[t]his practice is not only factually suspect, it is discriminatory.”  The comment, written by Anneliese Lederer, the NCRC’s Director of Fair Lending, was subsequently republished in The American Banker. 

The NCRC findings demonstrate that even interactions with the criminal justice system that do not result in a conviction record can have “lasting implications:”

It is known that having a criminal record is a barrier to both housing and employment. There are few protections for people with a criminal record.

But what about for people who have been charged and found not guilty, or their charges were dropped? What barriers do they face? Unfortunately, they face similar barriers as people who have a criminal record, especially in the small business lending arena.

Citing CCRC’s analyses of lending policies of the Small Business Administration, the NCRC comment highlights how these policies have given banks cover for their discriminatory practices:

Small business loans administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) have broad criminal history restrictions. Analysis conducted by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) found that no statute requires criminal history to be used as a factor in determining creditworthiness. Instead, the Small Business Act uses the words “may verify the applicant’s criminal background.” Furthermore, many restrictions that the US Small Business Administration (SBA) implements on interactions with the justice system are not codified. These restrictions are “either unannounced or only disclosed through FAQs published on the agency’s website…..[or] through policy statements and application forms.”

Read more

50-State Comparison: Marijuana Legalization, Decriminalization, Expungement, and Clemency

Updated:  June 2024 *See also December 2022 report & infographic: Marijuana legalization and expungement in 2022 † As used here, legalization means certain acts are lawful; decriminalization means certain acts may be punishable by fines but not incarceration (i.e. as infractions, petty offenses, civil offenses, etc). In all states, certain acts remain punishable by incarceration: see NORML’s digest of marijuana […]

Read more
1 … 8 9 10