PA: Bill cutting off public assistance for non-compliant Megan’s Law registrants passes the Pa. House

Admin

Legislation that would make convicted sex offenders who are out of compliance with Megan’s Law ineligible for public assistance passed the state House of Representatives on Monday by a 190-2 vote. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cox, R-Berks County, now goes to the Senate for consideration.

It would allow sex offenders’ benefits to be reinstated immediately once they came back into compliance but would not be eligible for any missed benefits. However, it allows benefits to continue for their minor children even if a parent or guardian is a non-compliant Megan’s Law registrant. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
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 and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. 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.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. 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.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Do this for ALL people absconding from parole and probation, not just registrants!

Again though, these registries trigger false flags all the time listing as “Out of compliance” for no reason at all. Would that auto-disconnect government resources for that individual, or would it be reviewed?

Lack of equal application to all people out of compliance with any kind of supervision means this bill is about further punishment.

0
Reply
View Replies (2)

I thought registered citizens had already been banned from most forms of public assistance…but then isn’t the government overly fond of redundancies, especially when it comes to us? My thought is, of course, that if someone isn’t compliant, the loss of public assistance is probably the least of their worries.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

Disgusting.

0
Reply

I feel like if someone is genuinely and willfully out of compliance- absconded, let’s say- losing public assistance might just be the least of his concerns. I’m not sure what such a law would accomplish, other than garnering more brownie points for the law’s authors, as is par for the course when it comes to the never-ending legislation against RSOs.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

Which one do you get for failure to register? Denial of benefits or prison? Failure to register is a felony. Or is it an infraction? Or both. When you are in prison then you will be following the registry laws. Then you can have your public assistance back, but it won’t matter,. Catch 22.

0
Reply

If the registrant fails to update his address how do they know where to send his EBT card in the first place?

0
Reply