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

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.  
 

12 Comments
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 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?