Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant-Appellants in People v. Corr and People v. McDonald

SUMMARY

The Corrections and Community Reentry Committee and the Sex Offense Working Group filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals in support of defendant-appellants in People v. Corr and People v. McDonald. The brief notes that “The People of the State of New York seek to extend by several years the time low risk registrants are subject to the New York Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”) on the sole basis that time spent on the sex offender registries of other states should not count toward SORA’s 20-year registration requirement.” However, as argued in the brief, “as a matter of sound public policy, the Appellants should be credited with the time they spent on the out-of-state registries … because …: (1) the prosecution’s interpretation of the law irrationally and unfairly subjects people who have moved to New York after time on another registry to the burden of additional years of registration, in contravention of the 20-year period prescribed by the legislature; (2) empirical evidence shows that registration and notification laws, such as SORA, do not protect the public from re-offense by the people listed on them; and (3) registration and notification laws are destabilizing to listed people, hindering their rehabilitation and thereby undermining public safety.”

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The People of the State of New York seek to extend by several years the time low risk registrants are subject to the New York Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”) on the sole basis that time spent on the sex offender registries of other states should not count toward SORA’s 20-year registration requirement. The New York City Bar Association, a voluntary membership organization of approximately 23,000 lawyers, including both prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers, believes that as a matter of sound public policy, the Appellants should be credited with the time they spent on the out-of-state registries, and their time on New York’s registry should not be extended, because, as set forth below: (1) the prosecution’s interpretation of the law irrationally and unfairly subjects people who have moved to New York after time on another registry to the burden of additional years of registration, in contravention of the 20-year period prescribed by the legislature; (2) empirical evidence shows that registration and notification laws, such as SORA, do not protect the public from re-offense by the people listed on them; and (3) registration and notification laws are destabilizing to listed people, hindering their rehabilitation and thereby undermining public safety.