ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

PA: Ruling raises questions about sex offender registry’s future

Changes are coming to Pennsylvania’s sex offender registry as a result of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision issued this week, but experts say it’s unclear exactly how they will play out. Full Article

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 
24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“Part of the Supreme Court’s decision was that the registration requirement constitutes a form of punishment, a distinction that legal experts said could have implications for how the system will work in the future.”

Ya THINK?? ANY form of punishment effectively should invalidate the existence of the registry in the first place, as determined by the “Price Club” arguments put forth in Smith v. Doe.

The writer fails to use the most important key word anywhere in his article: “Unconstitutional”!! 😠

And the victim rights advocate Storm notes, “I think we’re going to need to look at legislatively, what can we do to ensure the registry is beyond reproach.” Well, being certain such requirements are Constitutional might be an excellent first step!!

It like a membership to the Price Club.

It is ironic that the EXPERTS can not figure anything out.

Oh, they are very adept at figuring out how to circumvent the Constitution.

Aided by courts that assume Legislatures are acting honorably and have done due diligence with findings. The Courts seem to be trying to play honorably, all while the other two branches play dirty.

Jennifer Storm, the state’s victim advocate stated “I think we’re going to need to look at legislatively, what can we do to ensure the registry is beyond reproach.”

In other words she wants to find a way around the constitution. Well it’s the legislators that got you into this mess in the first place. The only way to make it beyond reproach is to abolish it completely.

Exactly. You can’t tweak, hone or polish something that’s ineffectual in design and application to begin with.

I’ve never in my life seen a group of people (lawmakers, cops and child safety advocates) so proud of something that offers ZERO intrinsic value to public safety, yet they cling to the “I want to know” nonsense for the illusion of comfort and control benefit.

This part: *********** Cumberland County District Attorney Dave Freed, whose office prosecuted Muniz, said the decision raises questions about whether the current law provides the sorts of procedures normally required when a court is handing down punishment. “What do we have to do in order to impose it? I don’t know that we know the answer to that question,” Freed said. “Does that have to be decided by a jury? What sort of notification requirement is there?” ************ The answer is, you have to abolish the registry and put punishment and protecting the public back in the hands of the… Read more »

Yeah, he sure sounds like a whip-smart legal beagle, doesn’t he? Let’s see, Mr. DA, how do you normally go about imposing PUNISHMENT on someone? Same rules, dude. Sheesh.

@AJ, I’m not sure I understand your criticism of Chris post. While a Bill of Attainder claim would be very difficult to win do to the fact there are so few cases to go off of. He isn’t totally incorrect. These registration laws, IML, AWA, etc. Are legislative acts that single out am easily assertainable group and punish without a trial. I would think we can all agree we have been waiting for a court to rule SORNA is PUNISHMENT and unconstitutional. Getting that punishment ruling would definitely help in getting a Bill of Attainder ruling but I’m not sure… Read more »

@Civil rights first
??? I in no way criticized Chris F’s post. I was mocking the DA. Chris F and I are–to a frightening and high level–quite often on the same page about these things.

My bad… I thought you were mocking chris..
On that “frightening and high” BS I’ve noticed lately there has been a little acknowledgment that isn’t true but now to discredit the true recidivism rates they are saying stuff like for every statistic that says x there is another statistic to say y so let’s just err on the side of caution and go with public safety to heck with RSO’s rights

@Civil rights first: No worries, brother (I assume). I can sometimes be a little ambiguous in my writing, and could see how perhaps it would be taken as you did. Yes, the argument does seem to have shifted on the percentages. I think they realize the “frightening and high” 80% ground upon which they’ve stood has been proven to be quicksand. So instead they’re going for the “if it just saves one child” argument, either explicitly in word or implicitly in message, because that always works. My question to the Courts is, “at what point does the rational basis fail?”… Read more »

I’m wondering how this Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision could be applied, or referenced, for similar challenges in other States ie New York.

@PK
I’d contact the attorneys for this case to see if they’re licensed in NY; if they aren’t, perhaps they can recommend someone. Since this was a State, versus Federal, Court, it cannot automatically apply. However, one could probably use it and the other State cases out there, along with Snyder and the USSG’s brief about Snyder, to launch a fairly strong suit.

From a High Profile NY Sex Offender Attorney in NY:
“… It is of course not mandatory precedent in NY but could still be helpful”

Sadly the 2nd Circuit already decided the changes weren’t ex post facto and NY falls in the 2nd circuit. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1669912.html

Maybe now they might re-consider, or the NY State Court of Appeals might see it differently but this is decided case law in NY. 🙁

NY, like FL, seems to be a very stubborn state when it comes to RC cases. It seems the only hope is for Federal action. On one hand, it’s a shame that it’s already been through the 2nd Court of Appeals, as getting another case heard could be quite difficult. But on the other hand, the opinion from the 2nd only strengthens the argument for SCOTUS to take Snyder–they need to settle the conflicts among the Federal Courts. Were it me, I would stay in touch with that NY attorney and see what s/he thinks about taking a case forward.… Read more »

Yes definitely she’s on retainer!

Hello PK i’d love the chance to chat with you about a few things. If you want email the moderator and ask them for my email, I believe I might of emailed you in the past but I’ve had a few Computer issues and lost a lot of stuff in a move about a year ago.

“It’s likely that many will seek to return to a 10-year registration period.” I know this quote came from someone on our side, but it’s still a pretty dumb statement. Let’s see, I can either have a 10-year period, or at least 5 more years, if not lifetime. Hmmm….I’ll have to think about trying to return to the 10-year period. “Part of the Supreme Court’s decision was that the registration requirement constitutes a form of punishment.” Did I miss this in the Opinion? It makes it sound as though just requiring registration is punishment…which would seem contrary to Smith. Or… Read more »

Cumberland County DA there is going to request SCOTUS review…..very interesting

My husband wanted to allow you know his today’s research.

READ ENTIRE OPINION – ITS IN THE FAVOR OR SPANN – MUNIZ APPLIES TO SPANN – FIRST ONE IN PA SUPREME COURT TO HAVE MUNIZ APPLIED IN AN APPEAL CASE AGAINST PSP AND PA PAROLE AND PROBATION!

The Pa Supreme Court Applied Muniz Decision because is it now LAW! – PA SUPREME COURT, says ITS LAW AND APPLIES TO OTHERS!

Read this Leroy Spann decision. Even though its a concurring statement, it says they still have to applied Muniz Decision even though they dont agree!

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/concurring%20statement%20-%20affirmed-reversed%20-%2010321130522850710.pdf#search=%22sorna 2017%22

24
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.