Comments on: NARSOL PA Affiliate: Responds to SCOPA Hearing in Comm. v. George Torsilieri

By: Eugene V. Debs

Eugene V. Debs — Sun, 17 Sep 2023 22:36:52 +0000

If anyone is wondering about this case here is an update https://youtu.be/sMh4og1KMwc?feature=shared from PARSOL

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 25 May 2023 15:26:21 +0000

“Decades of research states that sex offense registries are not only ineffective”. I would disagree. While they may not have been effective in what they were supposedly created to do, make people safer, they have been “very effective” for those who make a living with the information. Senator Book has a charity receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from State coffers and continually introduces bills in the Senate to further punish people on the registry with new laws that would make no difference in safety. Politicians, Law Enforcement, and many others grandstand on the subject, because it is effective in getting them re-elected.

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Wed, 24 May 2023 16:29:16 +0000

In reply to Eugene V Debs.

@Eugene

There is a simple solution to all of this. Give EVERYONE, a 2nd chance and if you get arrested again(For any new sex offense) then you get life in prison. Those who continue to do as we are doing and living our lives would be taken off the registry to prove their worth to society.
I personally would agree to this because I had never been arrested before my offense for almost 30 years, and now almost 32 years since my only offense, still no arrests. I and many others made some stupid mistakes that did not involve violence or physically hurting anyone.
But the fact we cannot get a chance because we are on probation for life, symbolically (The registry) we might as well be in prison. For every one thing we are allowed to do as citizens, there are 100 that we are not allowed to do, for example, in some places almost no place to live except under a bridge. How is that constitutional to send someone to live in the woods.

By: Eugene V Debs

Eugene V Debs — Wed, 24 May 2023 15:58:42 +0000

We gone from
“The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is “frightening and high”” 2003 and “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%” 2002
To evidence summited to this trial “ according to the record for this case, “80 to 95 percent of [past] offenders are likely NOT to recidivate.” research is in our favor in this case hopefully the judges see that. Also the lawyer does tell the justices that the overall re-offense rate is under 2% so hopefully they pick up on that as well. The question is whether they think 5% to 20% is still frightening, and high.
Also I truly believe our side had a better argument than the state. We showed Sorna hurts reputation after the fact and low recidivism rates.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 24 May 2023 15:53:24 +0000

In reply to Disgusted in Michigan. We can only hope. Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania precedent would take years to trickle into other states. And people travelling would still be subject to the host state and countries, and the DOJ notifications.

By: Machiavelli

Machiavelli — Wed, 24 May 2023 15:44:11 +0000

In reply to Disgusted in Michigan. I just hope the Judge has no political motivations

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Wed, 24 May 2023 13:38:52 +0000

I once saw an ad a long time ago for something, I think it was smoking. The ad featured 1000s of families who had lost a relative and it was basically showing that the product affected more than just the smoker.
Imagine if every registrant, their families, loved ones, bosses and friends, showed up in person on the supreme court grounds in solidarity to show all the people effected by the registry beyond just the registered person.

By: Disgusted in Michigan

Disgusted in Michigan — Wed, 24 May 2023 10:25:22 +0000

Finally a judge with a brain who does not accept the “frightening and high” BS, but rather accepts solid FACTS.
I think there will be a very good outcome in this case.