For the second time in the last three months, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled that Pennsylvania’s juvenile sex offender registration requirements are unconstitutional. On January 16, 2014, Monroe County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Margherita Patti-Worthington ruled that Pennsylvania’s law requiring juveniles convicted of sexual offenses be subjected to lifetime sex offender registration violates their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. (Read Judge Patti-Worthington’s opinion here.) Full Article
Related posts
-
PA: Bill seeks to close ‘loophole’ for AI-generated child sexual abuse materials
Source: penncapital-star.com 11/10/25 A two-hour state Senate committee hearing explored the use of artificial intelligence to... -
PA: Stuck in 1995 Rally Marks 30 Years of Failed Policies
Source: parsol.org 10/28/25 HARRISBURG, PA – October 28, 2025 – The Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL)... -
PA: Being suspected of child abuse can land you in this Pa. database — even without a conviction
Source: timesleader.com 10/2/25 To protect kids, Pennsylvania maintains a registry of people convicted and suspected of...

This actually makes sense, someone was thinking rationally and without fear and emotion in making a decision. Can this common sense approach ever be applied to adult offenders?
“Monroe County Court of Common Pleas President Judge Margherita Patti-Worthington ruled that Pennsylvania’s law requiring juveniles convicted of sexual offenses be subjected to lifetime sex offender registration violates their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
And what about the US Constitution?
“Monroe County Public Defender’s Office, filed motions on behalf of five youth adjudicated delinquent for offenses committed prior to the law’s effective date. The motions challenged SORNA under several provisions of the Pennsylvania and Federal constitutions as well as the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act.”
Now your talkin!
Upon reading this article I cannot help but feel/know that most of the statements about the harm this does to children can be applied to adults. But of course children do not have any money to take before everything else is taken as adults do, and it never looks good when harassing and oppressing children, now does it?
The most damaging statement/misinformation to adults is;
“Being a child implies a unique reputation in our society … Children’s habits are not solidified and this is contemplated in the law”
This statement indicates (in my eyes) that once an adult goes pee behind a bar, looks at some pictures, streaks at a sports event, or anything else that will result in a lifetime of oppressive misery paints them a demon-like character that is obsessed with peeing behind a bar, looking at pictures or taking their cloths of and running around in public naked. This thinking goes against the basic laws of nature. People are not like that, change is a universal law. People do change and the numbers on adult victims of this deranged thinking/registry proves this point.
At any rate; I’m happy for those kids and perhaps the arguments used against placing them on the registry will cross over to us adults.