Source: ACSOL
A court in Pennsylvania decided this week that its state registry laws violate the state’s constitution for two reasons. First, the laws are based upon a false presumption that all registrants have a high risk of reoffending. Second, the laws are punitive.
“This decision by a Pennsylvania court is the clearest statement available to date regarding how registries punish individuals convicted of a sex offense and yet are ineffective at preventing future sexual abuse,” stated ACSOL Executive Director Janice Bellucci. “Although this decision is binding only in Pennsylvania, this decision could serve as a model for other courts to follow.”
In its decision, the Court of Common Pleas found that registration laws in Pennsylvania are based upon a presumption that “all sex offenders, regardless of their personal characteristics and circumstances, have a high risk of reoffending sexually.” The Court then determined that the government’s presumption violated the state constitution’s right to reputation because it “unduly stigmatizes person convicted of sexual offenses.”
The Court also found that the existence of government records, such as a public registry, subjects registrants to negative stigmatization that is a threat to registrants’ reputations. That stigma, in turn, results in difficulty finding housing, employment/education as well as establishing pro-social relationships with others.
The Court further found that the “special stigma associated with the registry requirement is the express accusation in the legislative findings that everyone convicted of a sexual offense presents a ‘high risk’ of sexually offending. This strongly implies that even though one has been convicted and served his or her sentence, one remains a serious threat to society.” The Court also said that it is “this designation, this “scarlet letter of “high risk”, that distinguishes the heightened stigma sexual offenders experience, and hence their greater marginalization….” In addition, the Court declared that the government’s presumption that all registrants post a high risk of re-offending “compounds the isolation and ostracism” experienced by registrants and “sorely diminishes their chances of productively reintegrating into society.”
This decision includes a battle of experts, including Dr. Karl Hanson and Dr. Elizabeth Letourneau, who testified that 80 to 95 percent of all registrants will not reoffend. They also testified that there are more effective means available, such as treatment programs and professional support systems, to accomplish the aim of reducing sexual re-offense.
The Pennsylvania court also decided that the state registry laws were unconstitutional because they are punitive. The Court reminded the state government that “individuals are presumed innocent until they are found guilty by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court went on to rule that the rights of registrants to challenge the state’s registry laws are both “inadequate and illusory.” For example, a person assigned to Tier II must wait 25 years “before the opportunity to ever contest the fact or dangerousness…and is akin to no post-deprivation process at all.”
The Court went on to find that registrants are on “de facto probation for the entirety of their lives, with the regulation, control and sundering of privacy that such statute entails.” The Court also found that the state’s registry laws promote the traditional aims of punishment — retribution and deterrence. Further, the Court found that registration requirements are “comparable to a long probationary tail, an extended period of supervision and government control over one’s personal life which is a component of criminal punishment and, like a sentence, carries a degree of retribution. The difference, of course, is that probationary tails have end dates for compliant offenders.”
Also in its decision, the Court noted that the state’s registry laws waste resources that “could more effectively be applied to reduce the recidivism risk of offenders who are actually at high risk of committing subsequent sex offenses, imposes unnecessary burdens on individuals who are already unlikely to reoffend, and thereby impedes the public safety portion of the purposes of SORNA….”
Download the opinion PDF:
PA-Torsilieri-state SORNA-Opinion-2022
Holy cow! Someone finally calls it what it is.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but once this court decision reaches the main stream news in Pennsylvania, politicians, prosecutors and soccer moms will start their efforts to “Brock Turner” this judge. I predict he will be the next Aaron Persky of the Keystone state. PA politicians will then get to work to further codify SORNA requirements into law. The ruling by this “renegade” judge will become a distant memory and fade away………..
I live in Wisconsin, and I’m one of the original eight on the lifetime GPS lawsuit. One of my ex cellies moved to Pennsylvania years ago and he loves it. He is also a pfr. I have been to Pennsylvania a few times, and it’s a very nice state. If things keep on moving this way for Pennsylvania, I just may move there!!!!!!
Pennsylvania is one of a very few states where “reputation” is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Residents in PA can thank Ben Franklin directly for that fact. Franklin was also a staunch proponent of a free press, as he’d many business holdings in the printing press industry and was a publisher himself. Franklin is known for a great many things, but his daily bread and butter was made via the printing press. It was through Franklin’s use of the machine that he made both friends and enemies. Not all that different from the modern use of the DDI.
Very good news, but it’s pretty sad that the government always has to rely on “Dr.” Karl Hanson for its “statistics” when it comes to “registered sex offenders.”
Almost as if Karl Hanson has a monopoly on sex offender statistics.
This should be especially troubling, considering the fact that the Static-99 tests are pretty much junk sciences, that rely on questionable “risk factors,” and have a very limited/purported expiration, even by the so-called “developers'” own admission.
Also add to the fact that the Static-99 tests are behind countless Constitutional violations.
There’s too many questions and speculation here about this case. It seems that some commenters here haven’t actually read the opinion, or just don’t understand it.
There’s an article over on the FAC website that explains this case very well, and I think everyone needs to read it to fully comprehend the ramifications of this case.
RBG and Judge Matsch are raising a glass and toasting this.
Are you out of confusion? Not to worry – I’ll share mine:
[PA] Court upholds sex offender registration
Too little too late the damage has already been done.
I wonder why registrants won’t do what former sex offenders (homosexual acts and homosexuality were sexual offenses)did in Greenwich? Stonewall everywhere.
The only reason the court’s keep denying relief is because the court’s believe in something that is unreliable. According to Ben Shapiro (after finding out that recidivism among S.O’s is not frightening high but is actually exceedingly low and that the “evidence” that was proffered is unreliable hence made up) “We now have court’s of injustice.”