Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinion holding that Pennsylvania’s second-generation sex offense registration statute is non-punitive and thus ex post facto challenges against it fail.
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...
😠 Speechless and angry!! 😡
Flyers, Protests, Go Fund Me and all Orgs. And Protests and getting all REGISTRANTS TOGETHER EVEN IF IT VIOLATES THE BS LAWS TO SHOW DEMONSTRATIONS !
NO MORE LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS THAT STIFLE REGISTRANTS RIGHTS !
Lets get ammunition together people and take this Non Punitive Judgements in Everones face until we are heard for Truth and Justice not a compromised life of secondary acceptable citizens based on Biased Courts Opinions not Facts !
Thanks …to all those that take the stand for this cause !!!
Very disappointed but I’m not surprised. At least Europe learned from history after WW 2, but The witch hunt continues in the United States of Oppression.
Quantity of times to register in a year as well as number of offenses related to determines punishment and retroactiveness? That’s a new court low in thinking IMO. Once is ok but four times is too much? The damage is done at once! SMH
I have to state it again.
Sex offender registration has always been FAR more about the potential government uses of the database infrastructure than the offenders themselves. Our gov agencies and associated contractors desire unfettered use!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/edward-snowden-fast-facts/ar-AACTrf6?ocid=AMZN
That’s he sex offenders was and is a scapegoat for surveillance saints and their programs that generate cash and more importantly political security for certain embedded entities that thrive off of gov contracts.
“On January 17, 2018, Witmayer filed a timely, pro se PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition. ”
—–Translation—–
On January 17, 2018, Witmayer tried to play lawyer and filed a DIY petition. Because it was not done by a real attorney, a court appointed counsel, redid his petition.
Wow. I don’t get it. Well, I do…but I don’t. I didn’t even read it to be honest. It just makes me sick and I am working right now so I can pay taxes to pay them their salary so…… I am just really tired of the willingness to purposely set out to prevent people from getting themselves in a position to not be a risk to themselves, their families and society. Their feeling morally superior is more important.
With ever growing hunger of the registry there will be day soon when one or more of these judges’ beloved will be caught up on thing.
All this legal garbage talk, I wish they would talk English.
I just don’t understand how they can just violate the constitution, I was sentenced with a 10 year registration in 1999, who is the government to just change my sentence to lifetime registration just because, that is violation of my plea agreement and its double Jeopardy
Is the only hope left Colorado and Michigan? What is taking so long for Colorado?????
Based on my quick read of the Decision, it seems PA SC is saying this new SORNA is “close enough” to both AWA and the Smith situation as to be rendered nonpunitive. They don’t outright say that, that’s just the vibe I get from their words.
If the previous SORNA required in-person notification of changes to information (vehicles, Internet ID, etc) and this one does not, then it is indeed a significant reduction in affirmative disability, never mind the reduction from 4 to 1 for registration visits.
They’re gonna try to find a way to say that the registry is not punitive and that it is for safety but they are going to have a real hard time proving that because that’s nothing but confusion.
From NASOL’s website
The in-person reporting requirements that remain in Subchapter I are minimal and clearly necessary, and we thus find Subchapter I does not impose any direct affirmative disability or restraint. As the above Mendoza-Martinez analysis clearly reflects, Subchapter I effected significant changes from the original version of SORNA, retroactive application of which we found unconstitutional in Muniz. To summarize, we find three of the five factors weigh in favor of finding Subchapter I nonpunitive. Additionally, we give little weight to the fact Subchapter I promotes the traditional aims of punishment and give significant weight to the fact Subchapter I is narrowly tailored to its nonpunitive purpose of protecting the public.”
Sure it’s not the wanted posters of the old west; but it’s pretty damn close with anyone wanting to do harm to you for a decades old crime, non contact offenses, and other bull crap that gives one a membership. If the registry isn’t punitive why do government officials get off Scott free!! I hope Epstein’s girlfriend sings like canary!! Crumbling down the wall and hopefully some high political will fall getting a taste of their heroic laws.
I don’t see in the constitution where it says ex post facto laws are permitted as long as it’s regulatory. The sentence consist of 12 words. “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Period. So where exactly did this loophole come from and where, if not in the constitution, can it be read? If I understand it correctly then NO ex post facto LAW, whether regulatory, punitive or otherwise, can be created & used against tax paying American citizens. Am I wrong? What am I missing here? Can you help a brother understand? Or is everyone else as confused as I am? And when the end result of a regulatory law is a prison sentence, how is it “not punishment”?
How many people have been murdered and attacked because they have been on the registry? When Smith v. Doe was published, the number was really small. Since then, tons of people have been attacked/murdered because they have been on the registry. Countless others have been denied employment and housing because of the public registry. If that is not Cruel and Unusual Punishment, then what is??
Point is the public registry subjects you to the possibility of being murdered and physically attacked!! That IS punishment!!
Why is this not being pointed out by the Attorneys?? The possibility of the death penalty for being on the Megan’s Hit List is Cruel and Unusual which is banned by the Eighth Amendment!!