Nature of Case: Mr. Torsilieri — the Appellee in this case — was convicted of a sex offense and, as such, was required to register as a sex offender under Pennsylvania’s sex offense registration scheme. He brought a post-conviction challenge alleging that, because Pennsylvania’s sex offense registration law essentially used an irrebutable presumption of dangerousness that if violated several constitutional provisions related to punishment as well as state constitutional provisions protecting reputation.
The trial court agreed, and and held that based on expert evidence adducing that re-offense rates were lower, the provisions that the Appellee challenged were unconstitutional. The Commonwealth sought review.
Holding: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s opinion on the constitutional question, but did not reverse their opinion. Rather, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court observed that the Commonwealth did not submit evidence that was contradictory to the Appellee’s evidence related to re-offense rates. The Court remanded the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding on the question of re-offense rates. More
wow! A case focusing on actual data? This could be amazing if its not ignored!
This is the part when the government t may choose to use the “Static 99R” of its arsenal (if it helps their cause). On the contrary, the registrant may also end up using the Static 99R scam IF it helps him. Either way, expect to see the Scam 99. Remember, the “tool” is only used if it helps a side. But even at its *very* best, it is only about as good as a flip of a coin (i.e. a mere chance or guess) in accurately labeling the most “high risk” offenders. But even at that, given the dubious definitions of recidivism, sample, and non-transparent data — every bit of the Scam 99 could be questioned.
Wow. You can challenge that with stats?
Hmmmm… @Mike R, I know you can’t use other state’s cases, but if this holds, then maybe you can cite this case as an aside/tangent.
I do hope this case starts the avalanche for the courts to start accepting the updated statistics on recidivism.
🤗 So glad that a court is finally focusing on actual, verified recidivism rates ….. rather than the time-worn lie of “frightening and high”. 👍
🤔 Looks like the PA Supreme Court is busy:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/06/23/bill-cosbys-appeal-sex-crime-conviction-accepted-state-high-court/3242584001/
At least they don’t shy away and hide from sex offender cases.
Irrebutable presumptions? Sound’s a bit of a mind inducement. So who’s carnal by nature today. Now thats callous in a nutshell in itself. One’s might as well assume everyone is naked in some ways in a court of law if one’s case makes it to a jury trial or were us due process. Is not due process guaranteed today for all or are you just presumed innocent whether one says should I bring a bible to let you understand your ways and means today. Guess we all should go back to watching Perry Mason.
Janice keeping up with all these litigations and these trials and errors of a human nature is a mind bender in itself with this sex registry inducement type twist. So many facets. So were is the open and shut cases today. Coning is coning and cunning is cunning. Talk about acid reflux of justice. Talk about children tossed to and fro. Oh I forget we are not children and we are adults assuming to meet up with a teenage girl or whatever the case may be. So who’s protectng the mind in this mind bending game of wits. Most of these sex registry issues by computer are no more than con games.
Guess since its a sex issue one has already assumed in advance. So actually who know’s the thoughts and intent of another in all this rocket scientist judus prudience.
Expect the state to argue that “frightening and high” is true and that most offenses (anticipating a claim of 70 – 90 percent) aren’t reported, so the actual data is wrong. They’ll have no proof beyond what the “experts” at NCMEC and RAINN say.
I’m curious to see how much weight the court gives that. On one hand, I’m cautiously optimistic given the tone of the order. On the other, I think it a bit strange that the supreme court would remand with instruction for the state to actually present a case. They had their chance and obligations for that and either failed or chose not to (probably the latter, leaning on most courts’ tendency against registrants in general).
I find it interesting that they were arguing the “Dark Figures of sexual recidivism”, saying that many offenses are underreported. At the same time in 2020, CNN published an article about law enforcement and their involvement in rapes and sexual offenses, and that the “dark figures”, meaning those offenses that are never reported out of fear since the perpetrator is law enforcement, are a lot higher. So, should law enforcement be on a Hit List forever due to the “frightening and high” re-offense rate?
I haven’t read it yet but looks like a decision was published https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2024/97-map-2022-1.html