ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)


PA: Appellate court finds ‘predator’ process unconstitutional

A panel of appellate judges ruled last week that Pennsylvania’s established process to designate a convicted sex offender as a “sexually violent predator” is unconstitutional. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Nicholas Maietta

    The reason these laws exist in the first place is because that’s the only legal path to harming sex offenders they have. If given a legal option to maim and murder sex offenders, they would. End of story.

    I am going to start calling these kinds of politicians “potential closet baby rapers”, since they have a higher risk to harm a child than someone already on the registry. Many of them actually get caught doing the very things they pass laws to punish those accused of the same.

    • AlexO

      They already do that. Some states have mandatory castration for release for high level crimes.

      • Follow the $

        Surely that is something only a backwards conservative state like Alabama or Mississippi would pass into law. Not progressive states like California or Oregon or Wisconsin…oh wait…nevermind.

  2. Gralphr

    This is important due to many people being labeled a SVP due to the age of the victim and NOT because they have stalked and repeatedly raped or molested people. When one thinks of a SVP they think of multiple victims and multiple crimes (think Jefferey Dahmer or the night stalker), not one crime and one conviction. Then these very same people have lifetime registry, not because they have proven themselves to be a repeat offender, but because of the age of the victim alone. Does that mean a person will have to rape multiple adults to get the same designation that one will get for molesting one child under a certain age? That doesn’t make sense!

    • AlexO

      You don’t even need to molest anyone, like with CP. In all of our legislators wisdom, they made CP possession tier 3 while allowing several contact crimes into tier 1 and 2.

      • Davidh

        I get annoyed when I keep seeing folk being dismissive of CP at the expense of everyone else! CP is not a trivial thing! If there ever were a gateway drug CP would be the gateway to bigger things!

        I view CP as a serious problem where perpetrators pose a level of risk not to be dismissed. So please stop with the “oh just CP” routine and thinking that some how comparatively speaking it’s a nit–it’s not a nit!

        • Speechless

          I am almost speechless at your very aggressive and ill informed comment. Considering the incredible range of possibilities as to why someone is accused of CP, I would think that those of us on this comment section would oppose any blanket ruling or attitude towards any of our convictions. Making a statement that CP is some how a gateway crime simply is a very poor point of view and I can only surmise that you sir are very ill informed.

        • AlexO

          But statistically speaking CP is not a gateway, not any more so than regular pornography is a gateway to rape of adults. It’s not trivial, but to state CP should be treated more harshly than a physical crime? Even SORNA doesn’t treat CP as the top tier.

        • Follow the $

          Person’s convicted of solely CP possession related offenses are statistically some of the least like to reoffend or to escalate to contact related crimes. It is not trivial by any means but it is also not the gateway drug you claim it is. Even the idea of a “gateway drug” like Marijuana has been empirically disproven. Your comment is ill-informed and not backed up by any evidence.

        • Sam

          This reminds me. My ex boss was convicted of CP but he had massive archives and got caught up requesting shows from the Philippines. He got less time for that than the treasure trove of guns he illegally owned though. In total he got 38 years. His wife was not convicted of anything though even though she was the one who was helping find it for him.

        • norman

          Ignorance at its finest…smh

        • Hopeful8

          @davidh I attend sharper future with men who have had intercourse with girls and boys several years under the age of consent. They will be off the registry in 20 years, whereas I (having plead guilty of the unforgivable sin of looking at pics of the same) am a lifetime registrant. Seriously? If u think that’s reasonable or rational, then u might be an idiot. Think about it

        • America's Most Hated

          I find it very odd that the penalties for merely clicking on nude photos of teenage girls (that someone else uploaded) are far more harsh than actually having sex with the girl.

          Photos and videos of ISIS beheadings and burning people alive are horrifying, yet it’s perfectly legal to post them and view them. By the same logic of being a “gateway,” couldn’t we then argue that anyone viewing such torture and murder has a propensity to violence and should be imprisoned and put on a public watchlist?

          It’s incredible that even SOs can have a highhorse about whose sex crime is worse or more deserving of public banishment and a lifetime of persecution.

  3. Who removes from list

    Updates to Sex Offender Registration Law in Pa. Proposed

    By Victoria Hudgins | November 09, 2017


    Pennsylvania State Capitol.

    A member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives said his proposed legislation will adapt the Adam Walsh Act to prevent retroactive application of the law and still require sex offenders to continue registration as sex offenders to the Pennsylvania State Police.

    According to state Rep. Ron Marsico, R-Dauphin’s memo, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz found the state’s sexual offender registration act, known as the Adam Walsh Act of 2012, can’t be applied to defendants who committed their crimes before 2012 based on the U.S. and Pennsylvania constitutions.

    Marsico said that could lead to removal of 10,000 sexual offenders from the state sexual offender registry. Marsico said his proposed legislation would conform the Adam Walsh Act to the Muniz case by preventing retroactive application of the law. His legislation would also place Megan’s Law III’s “safety net” that requires sex offenders—who haven’t currently finished their registration as a sex offender—to continue to register with the Pennsylvania State Police.

    — Victoria Hudgins, of the Law Weekly

Leave a Reply

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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *