PA Supreme Court Set to Hear Oral Arguments on Constitutionality of Registry
The constitutionality of the sex offender registry is headed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Latest coverage of this case and another affected case:
FAC previously analyzed this case here:
For those interested in this case, join PARSOL’s live webinar tonight 5/13 at 7pm.
http://www.parsol.org
Looks like they’re having a zoom meeting tonight to talk about it
https://parsol.org/parsol-launches-perspectives-series-10-days-before-scopa-hearing/
I hope this ruling is not one step forward two steps back. Hopefully the judge see the registry for what it really is…punishment
Federal or State Registry?
@ Eugene and Randall- Thank you so much for posting those links and providing that information.
As the US constitution was written and conceived in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania it would be apropos that they could best decide what is not constitutional. So let the games begin. The Bill of rights was written in New York ,. Both a long way from Florida and even further from any attempt to follow it. Any decision Pennsylvania makes should have a big impact on how the Supreme Court views there the outcome of the matter.
One of the unconstitutional provisions of the Pennsylvania sex offender registry is that it requires Pennsylvania residents with out-of-state convictions that currently require registration in that other state to register in Pennsylvania for either 10 years or however long the other state requires registration, whichever is longer, when the out-of-state offense is not a crime in Pennsylvania.
My offense involved consensual sexual activity with a 17-year-old when I was 25, which would not constitute criminal conduct in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (or 38 other states). However, were I to move there, I would be required to register for life (or until Florida lets me go, should that ever happen under the 20/25-year provision). Thus, I would be treated more harshly for doing something that’s not even illegal in PA than those 10-year registrants with Pennsylvania convictions who actually broke Pennsylvania law. That is entirely irrational.
Unless the purpose of registration is punishment or Pennsylvania’s system is designed to discourage out-of-state registrants from moving there (both major constitutional violations), there is no rational basis for requiring me to register at all in Pennsylvania when similarly-situated Pennsylvanians who did exactly what I did, but in PA, are not required to register since that conduct is not illegal in the state. I hope that this aspect of PSORNA is invalided by the Pennsylvania high court.
What a horrible law!
I would add, “There is no rational requirement for registering anyhow.”
It’s time the other side starts showing all the examples of when keeping a list led to greater public safety. It is hysteria borne of reckless fear.
Here in VA we defeated a bill that purported to expand registration to include all those not on the registry prior to its inception (1993?). The state assemblywoman who sponsorted it claimed that everyone needs to know what’s on the list, and, if so, the old woman who had been raped by someone who committed a sex crime 20 years before (she claimed – I searched and found no evidence for it) would have been safe. That was her logic. And we have no idea what the supposed crime was, either.
Sounds like when authorities abuse.”So were in this more perfect union”?
While I’m sure many took plea deals. What type of true justice is that some wonder.
At times one should not look back, example-Lots Wife, but correction comes in the principal of the issue. Much, if not all of this registry is plain abuse of power in this true Justice for all. One would say authorities are usurping their position in this registry issue. Take Christianity out and you have man made principals of an uncanny American government.
SCOTUS is going to take up and most likely overturn Chevron case next term. if so i think that will help end this fing nightmare we all live in!
[Moderator’s note: That case does not appear to address the constitutionality of state registration statutes].
i believe it has something to do with delegation sort of and if so like i said i think that will HELP end this fing nightmare we all live in!
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3981417-supreme-court-to-consider-overruling-chevron-doctrine/
This case is very important. If you remember a few years ago SCOTUS heard Gundy V US Gundy basically was arguing that since Congress did not make SORNA retroactive that it was unconstitutional for the DOJ to make it such. AKA The Non Delegation Clasue. The court basically was split 4 to 4 if I remember with Justice Kavanaugh recusing himself as he did not hear oral arguements. If the SCOTUS rules to Overturn Chevron it could translate to a big win as then one could argue that the DOJ can not set SORNA as Retroactive. I will leave the rest to the Attorneys
My case being an entrapment case out of Oconto Wisconsin, I’m ready for this nightmare to be over with. I went through so much pain and turmoil at the hands of those people. The district attorney ended up having to retire due to health problems and that was his karma. I’m looking for more. I want the registry abolished so we can all have a chance to live life again.
Philip,
i am from MN and I sympathize. The registry is only a step — a big one. We must remove the sex stings and then, work on changing the Puritan culture that criminalizes anything from teen dating through accidental exposure or intellectual disabilities.
Thank you! I keep hoping for better days ahead. My case felt worse than a sting. The officer kept harassing me no matter how many times I told her no and she was the one who contacted me not the other way around. They had to ask for permission to arrest me. I’ve been told that I’ve been railroaded big time. Then I learned recently about Wisconsin’s supreme court and the influence of big business over courtroom functions. There was a conspiracy surrounding my case. Thank you for taking the time to listen and I greatly appreciate it.
I cover that in my reply to Debbie Wasserman Schultz and to the general accountability office for their ridiculous report about the stings and everything from the officers perspective
If anyone wants to listen in tomorrow. Court docket shows were the first case
https://m.youtube.com/live/3xB9LwPC7EI
Ok so from what I could tell defense was only kept saying high 20% recidivism rate and it’s a legislative issue.
Our side seemed well advised with our issues but mainly was bombarded with what happens with felon and gun rights, if you win. One of the judges mentioned what happens when the consensus change using Galileo as an example tho i could be potentially reading to much into that.
Seems there trying to see how they can unwind this law with out opening a can of worm with other people using this case as precedent.
One of the judges seem to struggle with striking the law vs individual assessments at one point so that could be a compromise. They also question why they used right to reputation.
I read somewhere they will announce their decisions in the fall around November
I appreciate your filling us all in, as I forgot to listen! Damn.
Still, your rendition is a bit confusing, for those of us who haven’t followed this so closely. Is there a recording someplace? Perhaps on the PA Supreme Ct. website.
I would check this link out at the end of the day to see if they posted it once the days court cases our over.
https://m.youtube.com/@SupremeCtofPAOfficial/streams
It’s posted https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3xB9LwPC7EI
Thanks.
I need good news. I got this today from an employer:
I sent the link to FAC about PARSOL’s response to the hearing. Not even thinking about posting the link here. I listened to the hearing this morning and REALLY believe that we will prevail. Not sure what that will look like, but very hopeful. The Commonwealth attorney really had no clue what he was talking about. If you want to see what PARSOL siad, visit PARSOL.org . Maybe, just maybe PA can give birth to freedom for us again, just like 1776.
I believe this issue is much simpler than the government has made it. First offense sentence and such based on severity and of course some post release community control (no registry, just parole tailored to the offense committed.) SECOND OFFENSE perhaps extremely steep mandatory minimums or life.