PA: Challenge to SORNA retroactivity reaches Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In the last few years, Pennsylvania’s courts have taken an active role in defining the propriety and scope of the state’s sex offender registration program.  Following on the heels of a December 2014 decision striking down sex offender registration for juveniles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a sweeping challenge to the retroactive application of Pennsylvania’s adult sex offender registry. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

beautiful finally someone challenging the real issues. I only hope they are competent and argue the issues intelligently.

Oh wow!

A second point that the Penn group has is “…Pennsylvania’s Constitution includes reputation as a fundamental right.”

I think this part of Penn’s constitution is paramount for deregulation of registration as it presumes all who register will re-offend. But I dislike that there is a science based risk assessment tool b/c that also presumes one will re-offend. Do DUI’s have this risk assessment tool? Or any other convicted group?

Now, as to whether or not it’s punitive could be dicey. I forget which state, but one state said in three instances that registration was punitive, but the last case said it wasn’t punitive so that the everyone will remain on the registry save the three people from the previous judgments.

Will Pennsylvania be the first to state registration is punishment? Very interesting, in deed!

California doesn’t have that “reputation is fundamental right”, does it?

I hope a very large dose of Quaker values, integrity, and courage will inform the court’s ruling.
(It is a primary tenet of the Quaker faith that “There is that of God in everyone.”)

Megan’s law; a fate worse than death? My cousin just killed himself prior to his sentencing. This young man chose death over a life time on Megan’s law. They say it isn’t a punishment but your duty. But this young man chose a death sentence over a lifetime on Megan’s law….. Do you hear that? Death over Megan’s law!

America and many other countries pay insurgents/terrorists to agree to stop killing Americans. In exchange they get second chances along with a home, pay and job help. It’s called insurgent reintrigation. They say the recividism rate is very low for insurgents/terrorist.

WOW THATS amazing. I guess I should not be surprised that are government is paying trained killers and from what I’ve read men that keep and molest young boys but persecute their own citizens including children in their own country for life. DISGUSTING

wow finally a lawsuit hitting on the issues. I hope the plaintiffs and their attorney’s are strong!

Too many times I suspect hate groups conspire to take forth a case from some desperate RC,knowing they cant win, while setting up ill founded case law in the process. These are people with an agenda and know how to nationally manipulate the courts and therefore public policy!!