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
-
PA: Testimony on House Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law Residence Restrictions
Source: aclupa.org 9/12/23 Session: 2023-2024 Hearing: House Judiciary Committee | Hearing on HB 77: Megan’s Law residence restrictions... -
PA: Efficacy of sex offender residency rules questioned in Pa. House hearing
Source: pennlive.com 9/12/23 A bill that would restrict where certain sex offenders could live in Pennsylvania... -
PA: Megan’s Law hearing canceled
Source: altoonamirror.com 5/12/23 HOLLIDAYSBURG — Blair County Senior Judge Timothy M. Sullivan won’t be hearing arguments...
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