I'm pretty sure it's the date of conviction.

I was always under the impression that one could only be charged with what the law said when the crime was committed. I thought that was a constitutional right. I haven't really gotten a direct answer since asking the question a few years back. My guy was sentenced in 2008 for something that happened in 2003. The idea behind the constitutional idea I think went something like "you can't punish someone with a law that was put in place after the "crime" occurred." One way to look at it would be with abortion (rough subject, I know). If the legal system decided that abortion would be considered murder starting today, they would not have the right to go back for the past 30 years and arrest anyone who had an abortion before today on the charges of murder.

TY everyone

In the great, right-wingnut State of Arizona, release date is calculated from the time the person is arrested for the crime, if s/he is subsequently convicted. So, while the crimes my son committed ranged from 2006 to 2008, he was arrested on August 4, 2009, (convicted in January 2010) so his release date is calculated from August 4, 2009. Hope this helps.

No, the Federal law states.......The laws in EFFECT at the time of the CRIME controls. That means that they can NOT sentence you for something that was NOT in effect at the time the CRIME took place.
It's called the AMELIORATIVE effect.
All states follow this guidline.
So if the crime took place in 2006, then the laws that were in place control.

Oh... also, the ex post facto laws also back this up!

But there is a difference between what the law states and what was typically done to someone at a particular date. For example, 25 years ago, it seemed as if an older guy could consentually date a younger girl with no problem provided no one was upset about it. The laws now say in many states that you can go back 40 or more years and accuse someone of something. If that person is convicted now for something that happened 25 years ago consentually, they would suffer current sentencing consequences. So, 25 years ago, the typical response for a consentual relationship between someone older and someone younger may have been probation. But, if that case were heard today, the older person could expect to serve time in jail or prison. I am not sure if I am making much sense. But, even sixish years ago when my guy did what he did, people were not getting 4 year prison sentences with 15 years probation for what he did. My argument was that he should be sentenced according to what people were being sentenced when he committed the crime. But, his lawyer didn't seem to care what I was saying - or at least indicated that it wouldn't make a difference if he argued what I was saying.

I have to say this, when it comes to being a convicted sex offender, you have no constitutional rights, I know, my husband was convicted in 1991, released from prison in 2000 and now has to register for life, even though the sex offender registry didn't take effect until 1994. He was told when he was released that he didn't have to register, but we had the police beat on our door and roughly cuff him, refusing to even tell me what he was being arrested for just last year. We had to find a way to defend him from failure to register charges, 9 years after the fact!!!