PA: High Court will again review sex offender registration

Two years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shook up long-settled orthodoxy by ruling that the state’s sex offender registration law, otherwise known as SORNA (Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act) was punishment. The case, Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2018), presented the Court with two questions: whether people who committed their crimes before the adoption of the law could continue to be registered without running afoul of the state Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, a fairness doctrine that prevents governments from retroactively applying greater punishments to conduct than could have been applied at the time of the crime; and, second, whether the law more broadly violates due process by unfairly labeling a person as sexually dangerous without first proving that fact and without giving the person an opportunity to challenge that message. While the Court answered the first question with a resounding yes, it punted on the second. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  
 

26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

All right everybody, let’s pray.

Bravo to Muniz for putting this brilliant petition together. It is crystal clear.

Until the people address the fact that the indenture of human to machine database maintenance has long been in common practice, humanity will continue to suffer.

Evidently a moron, I cannot find the judgment being appealed. Wanted to read it. Anybody else find it?

This should succeed.

Even if it doesnt get to SCOTUS, it will be the blueprint for filings in other states. SCOTUS may be quicker to take a case like this on if the registry crumbles in one state and that state risks becoming a safe harbor for other state’s sex offenders.

This line made me guffaw: “Despite a strong preference for deference to legislative fact-finding, no court and no standard of review has ever required the abdication of the courts’ independent responsibility to ensure that laws depriving fundamental rights do not overstep constitutional bounds.”
—–
They may not be required to abdicate their responsibility, but they sure seem to like doing so.

I have yet to read the docs, but I like the comments from the usual suspects on here. Heartening without even cracking a page.

“If the Court strikes down SORNA under a due process theory, the Legislature will be tasked with reexamining the law’s fundamental premise – that all ex-offenders are and will permanently remain “high risks” to the community. That reexamination is precisely what appellee seeks. A decision on the case is expected sometime in early 2020.”

OMG, they would not make the legislators have to do their jobs by drafting rational laws or conform to that pesky constitution would they?

Have not read the brief yet but it sounds very encouraging that the guy hired all these experts and shit. Would have been nice if I had that money. I still think they will have to recognize my judicial notice though. At least at the appellant level once it gets there.

Man those are the old rulings on Muniz, where is the Commonwealth v. Torsilieri case briefs challenging the law prospectively? The case that the whole article and post is referring to.

I place the abdication squarely in the lap of the Rehnquist Court panel.

Our law reads “A person who was in prison for…A crime.”

This kind of law wording is ex post de facto.

The use of that language by ALL 51 congresses displays beyond paradventure the true state of the constitution ratified and supported by the bill of rights.

I’m confused by this beginning of the article: “The case, Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2018), presented the Court with two questions: whether people who committed their crimes before the adoption of the law could continue to be registered without running afoul of the state Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause, a fairness doctrine that prevents governments from applying greater punishments to conduct than could have been applied at the time of the crime……
While the Court answered the first question with a resounding yes….”

🤔 So the court ruled, Yes, those with pre-SORNA convictions could indeed continue to be required to register??
(It had been my understanding that the court said, No, they cannot be required to register. ) 🤔
🤨 *confused*

George Torsilieri was removed from the PA Megan Law website ahead of any decision in his PA Supreme Court case 37 Map 2018.

The bottom line is the Constitution says you cannot resentence a person who has already been tried, those of us who were sentenced before Megan’s law or Sorna, anything beyond our sentences is violation of due process and unconstitutional.
Why are our lawmakers permitted to violate the Constitution and get away with it. And it really starts with the United States Attorney General who made it retroactive, so shouldn’t they be forced to undo the retroactive?

Sorna 2 just found unconstitutional by Pa. Superior court. Registrant ordered
from list…

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A12038-19oA.pdf

I was convicted of in decent assault Jan 23 2017 by a mental health staff I was off my meds she say I touch her but is there good layer in Erie PA help me get off this regerster thing