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
Related posts
-
Senators call for audit of TSA’s facial recognition tech as use expands in airports | The Record from Recorded Future News
Source: therecord.media 11/22/24 A bipartisan group of 12 senators on Wednesday sent the Department of Homeland... -
-
SORNA Case Advances in Federal Court; PLF Files Motion for Summary Judgment
The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18 in its...
“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.
It like a membership to the Price Club.
It is ironic that the EXPERTS can not figure anything out.
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.
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 judges, and decided during the fair sentencing phase of trial based on the individual and circumstances.
Now that it is punishment, it also is a Bill of Attainder, and cannot be applied to those after the date it became law either. The legislature CANNOT target a specific group, especially a politically powerless and hated group, with a law that adds punishment beyond what the court determined. That can only come from the judge. The legislature can provide tools to the judiciary to create punishments, but can’t provide extra punishment directly to a group in addition to what the judge decided. It’s a clear Bill of Attainder and the determination uses the same Mendoza-Martinez factors to determine that it’s punishment that ex-post-facto uses.
I’m wondering how this Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision could be applied, or referenced, for similar challenges in other States ie New York.
“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 is this perhaps a PA-specific aspect? I’m feeling too lazy to re-read the Opinion right now, but probably will just to settle this item in my own mind.
Given the PA SC has already ruled, I sure hope the State Police have taken down the information and pictures those affected. They could certainly be given a few days to get it done, but the clock is ticking on further lawsuits for those left on the registry who shouldn’t be, I would think–likewise the 3rd Party sites that like to push this information. But, I’m guessing the State will claim they have to go through all the data to ensure nobody gets dropped, because they have to ensure the proper dates are used. Such is total BS, since they already have all the data computerized, but that sort of bureaucratic delay tactic will not surprise me one bit.
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