PA: Legislature moves to keep 17,000 sex offenders on state registry

HARRISBURG — The state House on Tuesday voted unanimously on changes to the state’s sexual offender registry intended to correct problems the state Supreme Court identified as unconstitutional.

If left uncorrected, more than three-quarters of the more than 20,000 people now registering on the Megan’s Law list might need to be removed, according to data provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. 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.  
 

45 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Well here we go. Since HB 1952 has been redone all of a sudden it’s gonna take 18 months to figure out who comes off and who stays on. Now it took only a week or 2 if that for them to get everything together when we all had to deal with the sorna switch. Their benefit a week or two. Our benefit 18 months. Sounds like PSP is gonna drag their feet because the benefit is not in their hands.

“…reporting requirements are not punitive so they can be applied retroactively”

Isn’t that still ex post facto by a basic definition? Looks like it to me.

Here’s your budget shortfall money for the time being.

Someone get the Guvnuh on the line please…

What is the Docket Number for Muniz at the SCOTUS Level. We wont hear any news on a grant or deny until at least January. The next conference date is January 5 2018 unless Marcus filed a brief and the Commonwealth want to response to it. And if Marcus asked for the extension it was because he knows HOUSE BILL 1952 benefits his client and would save everyone so much more money if Marcus delays and HOUSE BILL 1952 passes before SCOTUS denies or grants cert. Because if HOUSE BILL 1952 passes then my husband can almost guarantee the Commonwealth drops the Muniz Appeal. They already win with HOUSE BILL 1952 because he grabs every one prior to SORNA effected by the MUNIZ Decision and it keeps them on the registry knowing that HOUSE BILL 1952 will takes years to get argued and by then they get another law in place. HOUSE BILL 1952 is a saving face bill to protect the public. Everyone prior to SORNA will be placed onto it and the ones who are done there 10 years will have to wait 18 months like PSP has requested to locate the ones who need to come off it.

HOUSE BILL 1952 will be signed in January 2018.

Any one due relief from MUNIZ will be placed on the HOUSE BILL 1952 by March 2018.

No speculation. Just saw the games they played with husband before his case was dismissed per muniz

My husband just read the Brief to Deny Cert filed. WOW WOW AND WOW!

He said that they nailed it in every possible way.

By slowing bringing the Michigan Denied of Cert into the equation but not resting its reason solely on Michigan’s denial. The comparison was perfect. State by state issue!

Cert will be denied.

Now it is just a race of time for the ones with petitions in the lower court, House Bill 1952 or the deniel of cert.

However when cert is denied and House Bill 1952 is passed, what do we do?

The brief was very well written and 100% factual, f was caught in many lies which don’t look good I front the justices.

How about this USSC decision : Doctrine of Vested Rights – McCullough vs. Virgina 172 u.s. 102(us1898)
It is not within the power of a legislature to take away the rights which have been once vested by a judgement…..

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JERRY PURYEAR

Appellant No. 1502 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered August 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0001928-1996
CP-36-CR-0002908-1996
BEFORE: MOULTON, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SOLANO, J.: FILED DECEMBER 20, 2017
Appellant Jerry Puryear appeals from the order denying his petition to
enforce a guilty plea agreement. We vacate that order and remand in light
of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz,
164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), pet. for cert. filed, No. 17-575 (U.S., Oct. 13,
2017).
On May 8, 1997, at docket number CP-36-CR-0001928-1996,

Must read!

@Mike S
I respectfully disagree, I don’t think Muniz is going to be rejected based on what all of the other states were decided by SCOTUS, plus only 1% of certs make it through, Muniz lawyer has an amazing and sensible argument, Muniz is all about SORNA, even though he was pre sorna, he was as you know charged not to long after SORNA went into affect but as you also know he caught his charges pre SORNA , by placing SB 1952 in place of SORNA I would think is expost facto to the post SORNA registrants, Do you think their going to revert post SORNA people to the old ml, that’s another lawsuit waiting to happen in my opinion,I am not thinking this is how it’s going to work out but hey you could be right Mike but my intuition is saying something completely different,

http://republicanherald.com/news/pottsville-man-gets-lifetime-megan-s-law-sanctions-for-child-rape-1.2281613

This man committed his offenses prior to SORNA in 2011.

He plead guilty after in November 2017.

He is required to register under SORNA for life as tier 3.

So an offense before SORNA, Muniz doesnt apply too.

Only a conviction prior to SORNA now Muniz applies too.

Someone help my husband and I on this one, makes no sense.

Judges dont care either or this guy wasnt the brightest or had a dumb attorney.

CS
Yes I was I apologize for that I misunderstood,
I think He was saying that SCOTUS would deny Muniz as accept the cert. I understand now.

It’s good that everyone is talking to each other about this law. However ,you must now flood the Pa.senate and governor with e-mails,fax’s,telephone calls and letters.
Explain to them they took an oath to uphold your individual constitutional rights and they would be engaging in ultra vires conduct if they vote yes on Pa.House Bill 1952 of 2017.
You don’t want to whine as if they are your master. Instead,let them know you are theirs and 1952 is a violation of Pa. Constitution and flys in the face of Muniz precedent .
1-the legislative finding the s.o.have high recidivism rate is an outright lie. The actual rate found in ton’s of professional studies and actual factual Government statistics prove the rate for committing a 2nd sex crime is less then 3%.
2-Supply them that data if you have it.New York has compiled a lot of them . Dig,work and show them.
3-All pre-2012 m.l. in Pa.expired under sorna-42 Pa sec. 9799.41 and 1 PaCSA sec. 1971(A) and sec. 1928(B).
There does not exist any former 2012 m.l. in Pa.that house bill 1952 wants to retro actively impose.
4-That Muniz tells the senator and governor that no one can be put on the internet pg. 38-40 and that they told them that first in 2003 in com.v.williams,832A.2d at pg.980.yet H.B.1952 ignores this legal fact..
5-That by threat of punishment forcing you to provide and verify registration info at your own time and expense without compensation is involuntary servitude which can only be imposed when duly convicted of a crime USCA 13th and that means it is punishment.
6-The only punishment in effect date of crime can be imposed. See Muniz expost facto clause .
7-That the senators and governors oath mandates they protect you from being forced into contract,s against your will and how H.B.1952 demands you verify the info you serve the psp. is correct and ,that you agree to m.l. terms and re-enter the contract no less then once a year. It’s an unconscionable contract of adhesion.
8- That it’s obvious the house members did not read the Muniz precedent,nor H.B. 1952 and as your senator they have a sworn duty to stop H.B. 1952 in its track’s as it not only is the most unconstitutional law ever created, it id fiscally irresponsible and satanic.
9-Everyone must flood the Pa.senate and governor with the info.They return Jan.2,2018. There is no time to waste ! Remember the senator;s and governors secretary aid’s will first get the info and likely will not pass it on to the senator,nor governor just like how the judiciary committee did not allow any general public input when making H.B. 1952. So you must repeat your flooding demanding senators and governors personal response to you .