Opinion ID: 1998065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Quality of Offense

Text: All of the parties and amici agree that the Scale and RRA Manual are premised on the belief that the statutory measurement, the risk of re-offense, includes a combination of two factors: the damage likely to be caused by re-offense, if it occurs (the quality of the re-offense), and the likelihood of re-offense. The authors of the Scale contend that the quality of re-offense is in large part determined by the seriousness of the registrant's prior offense record. The Registrant and amici, however, dispute the State's contention that the use of quality of re-offense criteria conforms with the risk factors provided by the Legislature in the RCNL. According to the Public Defender, the Legislature did not envision the creation of a scale that would classify registrants according to the potential gravity or nature of future sex offenses. The Public Defender argues that it was the Legislature's intent that tier classification be based solely on the likelihood of re-offense without regard for the degree of harm or lack of harm that might result from a particular future offense. Consequently, the Public Defender contends that the Seriousness of Offense category should not be treated as an independent category on the Scale, but instead should be considered in connection with and as a subset of the statutory criminal history factors listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8(b)3 and (b)4. The Legislature, however, did intend for the gravity or nature of past offenses to be considered as a component of the risk of re-offense. In Doe v. Poritz, supra, 142 N.J. at 74, 662 A. 2d 367, we observed that the focus of Megan's Law in determining the appropriate notification level was the risk of re-offense. For the purposes of community notification, part and parcel of the risk of re-offense is the gravity of the crime the particular registrant might re-commit. We clearly stated that the factors making up tier determinations are strongly related to the risk of re-offense and the consequent need for greater or lesser notification. Ibid. The need for greater or lesser notification is directly related to the gravity of the offense to be re-committed along with the risk that the registrant will re-commit whatever crime the registrant committed before. When we said in Doe v. Poritz that the statutes were designed simply and solely to enable the public to protect itself from the danger posed by sex offenders, we did not rule out the understanding that the level of notification required for the public to protect itself varies according to what crime the public must guard against. Id. at 73, 662 A. 2d 367. The Scale was therefore appropriately designed so that people who are very likely to recommit their offense, but whose offenses are low in seriousness, such as exhibitionists, would not be ranked as high on the Scale as people who commit fewer, but more serious, offenses such as rapists or sexual thrill killers. The Attorney General's decision to include factors in the Scale that relate to the quality or nature of a re-offense is consistent with the RCNL and Doe v. Poritz ; accord W.P. v. Poritz, 931 F. Supp. 1199, 1221 (D.N.J. 1996). Further evidence that the gravity of the offense involved relates to tier classification is how every factor in the Seriousness of Offense category relates to the RCNL's enumerated risk factors. Supra at 81-82, 679 A. 2d at 1157-1158. Whether the offender committed the sex offense against a child is a statutory risk factor, and thus the inclusion of the age of victim factor in the Seriousness of Offense category is appropriate and warranted. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8b(3)(c). Similarly, consideration of the degree of force (low risk for no physical force or threats, moderate risk for threats and minor physical force, and high risk for violence, use of weapon, and significant harm to the victim), the second qualitative factor contained in the Scale under the Seriousness of Offense category, was mandated by the Legislature. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8b(4) requires consideration of [t]he relationship between the offender and victim, [w]hether the offense involved the use of a weapon, violence, or infliction of serious bodily injury, and [t]he number, date, and nature of the offenses (emphasis added). The degree of force used by a registrant in prior sex offenses describes the nature of those offenses, and thus its inclusion in the Scale is reasonable. The third qualitative factor contained in the Seriousness of Offense category is degree of contact involved in prior sexual offenses (low risk for no contact or fondling over clothing, moderate risk for fondling under clothing, and high risk for penetration). Although this factor was not specified by the Legislature, it too relates to the nature of the offense, which is a specified risk factor. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-8b(4)(c). In addition, this factor is relevant to the determination of whether a registrant has a duty to register. Under Megan's Law, offenders who select adult victims do not have a duty to register unless the nature of their sexual offense involves penetration or sexual contact accomplished by means of violent, dangerous or abusive conduct. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2b(1); N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2; N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3.