sex offender rights

In addition to abolishing the offence of buggery (sodomy) between adults, this Act codifies the law relating to sex work (referred to as ‘prostitution’), with the starting point being that it does not make prostitution itself illegal. However, the Act does not define ‘prostitute’. Section 1(2) defines ‘prostitution’ as occurring where “a person solicits or importunes another person for the purpose of obtaining that other person’s services as a prostitute,” or where they solicit or importune another person on behalf of a third person for the purposes of prostitution.

The appellant was convicted by the court of first instance for the murder and rape of one woman and the murder and attempted of rape of a second woman. Taking into account the fact that the man had previously been convicted of similar crimes, the first instance court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellate court left the judgment unchanged. The appellant’s attorney filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, in which he asked the Court to revoke the sentence and close the criminal proceedings due to insufficient evidence.

The two defendants were charged with raping the complainant. The court of first instance sentenced the first defendant to four years of imprisonment, but discharged him from punishment on probation. The court acquitted the second defendant due to lack of evidence. The prosecutor appealed, arguing that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the acquitted defendant.  The prosecutor argued that discharging the first man from punishment on probation did not correspond to the gravity of the crime.

The appellant attacked the victim in the park in an attempt to rape her, but he was noticed by other people and fled the scene of the crime before committing rape. The court of first instance sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for three years. However, the court discharged the appellant from imprisonment and instead put him on probation, with the imposition of certain duties. The appellate court overturned this decision and reinstituted the prison sentence of three years, cancelling the discharge from punishment on probation.

The appellant was convicted of debauchery for committing lewd acts against the victim, a girl under 14 years old. The first-instance court sentenced the defendant to five years of imprisonment and banned him for three years from continuing to volunteer at a children’s home. The appellate court left this decision unchanged. However, the Supreme Court changed the additional punishment, stating that courts may only impose such additional punishment if the commission of the crime was related to the perpetrator’s position or to engagement in certain activities.

Two men convicted of child rape challenged the constitutionality of the Sexual Offenses Act's amendments to the existing Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).  The amendments permit child victims and witnesses of sexual offenses to participate in modified court proceedings to facilitate testimony.  The lower court declared the amendments to the CPA constitutionally invalid.  The Constitutional Court reversed the ruling, holding  that (1) courts must inquire into the need to appoint  an intermediary in sexual offense trials whenever children  are expected to testify, re

The court considered the issues of open justice, fair trials, and the right of the accused to confront the accuser.

In the case In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 204 N.J. 179, 8 A.3d 174 (2010), the defendant was convicted of multiple violent sexual offenses after burglarizing two homes. In one incident, he raped a woman while threatening her with a knife, and in another, he raped a woman while threatening her with a gun. He also entered a nursing home, forced a female resident into a bedroom, and demanded that she perform oral sex. The defendant entered a plea agreement that resulted in a twenty-four-year prison sentence with twelve years of parole ineligibility.

The applicant, a local employee of the UN mission in Kosovo, was arrested and charged with various criminal offenses, including facilitating or compelling prostitution (Article 241 of the Criminal Code of Kosovo).  The Basic Court found him guilty and sentenced him to 14 years imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the guilty verdict.  The applicant filed a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court, which rejected the request.

Otey v. Director of Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, (N.D. Ala. 2017) is a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama case where a federal constitutional challenge to the state’s Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (SORCNA) was considered.