ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings


PA: Commonwealth v. Torsilieri

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

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.  
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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… Read more »

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”. 👍

I second that and I hope the truth can be acknowledged. Enough of this frightening and high lies!!

🤔 Looks like the PA Supreme Court is busy:

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… Read more »

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… Read more »

It’ll be interesting to see if they do present the underreporting argument because that too can be picked apart and refuted as seen in this Time article (upper part before delving into gender inequality of SA claims):

Stats are only as good as the data inputted into them to tell the story the author wants.

Let Registry Supporters/Terrorists lie about “frightening and high” all they like, it’s irrelevant. Even if it were true, it’s irrelevant. There is a legitimate reason to have $EX Offender Registries (Hit Lists). A reason. Can anyone think of more than one legitimate reason? I can’t offhand. There are plenty of illegitimate and/or idiotic reasons, including: 1. Punishment. 2. Shaming. 3. Harassment. 4. Vindictiveness. 5. Keep big government big and growing. 6. Give people employment. 7. Make some people feel good. 8. Raise the self-esteem of some people. The one legitimate reason for the Hit Lists to exist is if they… Read more »

I have been thinking about this as well, as it pertains to a case I am currently involved with. I have a Masters which is heavily tilted towards statistics. The biggest issue I see, is that the input data is biased. It is based on mere allegations which have not been tested by a neutral fact-finder, it is hearsay (the rules of evidence would lend that it is not allowed as evidence). The same can be said with regard to the state’s arguments that the Court should just take the legislature’s findings as fact. This is also problematic because, well,… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x