“There is a difference between the conviction and the effect of the registry’s label of a ‘high risk of danger’ on individuals, particularly things like unemployment and joblessness, houselessness, depression, and even suicide are affected by the label. SORNA says that individuals on this registry pose a risk of sexual danger, not just at the time of conviction, but now and forever into the future as long as they are on the registry.”
Watch here or on YouTube.
The one male judge with obvious bios kept claiming well, they don’t have to recidivate, to show proper intent by the legislature, they just have to be at a “high risk” of recidivism, and that is what the legislature meant. Even if the result of recidivism is next to zero, it doesn’t matter.
Basically saying, all they have to do is be a higher risk than regular people and think of recidivating for them to be a “high risk”. As if to read peoples minds on if they might think of recidivating or not more than other “normal” people. He kept bringing that up and I can’t believe he did not realize what a ridiculous argument he kept making…
They also made it clear they were afraid to overturn both the legislative and the governors so called attempts to keep the public safe and what that would do to their reputations and retributions against them.
The lawyers did the best they could and showed endless proof of the uselessness of the SORNA, but you can tell judges are very reluctant to hear anything, even endless proof, that the SORNA is not working, useless and unconstitutional. They are just afraid to be the first spoke to say so.
If under 3% percent reoffend that is what our side quoted, is that considered “quite high” and does that warrant these rules from the legislature ? I think we proved our point in that we’re falsely label a danger for life without any due process.
There will always be people, groups of people who uses the registry for personal gain. And in politics they use it for fear mongering to seek re-election so of course there will never be true consensus from the legislature regarding our issues they will lose there fear mongering reelection ticket.
The court will have to step in to override the legislature and Governor and hopefully they gut Pennsylvania Sorna. The legislature still wants to use beliefs over facts. You decide the outcome of a case based on facts and evidence that is presented hopefully they put aside their beliefs and rule on facts presented to the court.
Yea, if youre locking up 20year old children putting them on the most intensive punitive monitoring program on the planet, id say theres a higher chance of recidivism when youve created the the program to produce recidivism.
I like how everyone is talking about “presumption” as if its definition is defined as “statistical fact”. The entire registry and its components are based on “presumptions” because if it was based on statistical data and facts Theye’d have nothing meaningful to support its implementation.
True, Gerald! We keep giving them real statistics, actual proof, and logical arguments.
They keep stating vague prognostications, biased and faulty logic, and suppositions.
I can say positively that the opposition is evil because they oppose the truth for personal gain!
Shame shame shame! As long as they have their boogyman/scapegoat class they are content to torture and abuse a million US Citizens in the name of retribution!
@JJJJ
I am no statistician, however, at the rate they are putting people on the registry, in 30 years half of the U.S population could be on the registry, especially if we all have to stay on for life. Ahh, but that means new jobs working in the field of registry compliance. Just think, that will become a new college course. Bachelor’s of Registry sciences.
It is disturbing that some of the justices were implying that a positive ruling in this case could mean that they will also have to use the same reasoning if a convicted felon brings suit claiming that the government can’t take away his right to bear arms. 2 very different issues, because the registry is a 24 hour a day punishment. Hopefully the majority of the justices will reject that argument.
Is this recording a new recent hearing?
It appears as though the Pennsylvania supreme court ruled on this 5 years ago. Although they left it open for the lower court to make some sort of decision based upon recidivism statistics they did not have.
https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/2020/06/16/commonwealth-v-torsilieri-pa-2020/
https://mitchellhamline.edu/sex-offense-litigation-policy/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2020/06/Trial-Court-Opinion.pdf
Is his a hearing to review the statistics?
even if they prevail, does any other states or US constitution protect the “right to reputation”
https://www.pietragallo.com/publications/simon-says-protect-my-reputation-understanding-pennsylvanias-constitutional-right-to-reputation/
Life on the registry is by law, not by sentence. Laws and sentences can be deemed unconstitutional.
The only issue at hand is, is the registry constitutional or not. Seems to me that our arguments are not hitting that strongly or directly enough. We make “other” good points, but don’t address strongly or directly or factually enough why the registry is unconstitutional. .
@Anonymous
I might be using this wrong but there is a term that comes to mind.
“Equally applied under the law”. There is nothing equal about the registry when only crimes involving a sex offense have a publicly accessible punishment page for each and every one of us. These pages are maps to our house for those who want to harm us and or our families.
I do not have the link but last year I saw a story where deputies went to check on a registered person and ended up at the wrong house and things did not end well.
Because of my entrapment case, I’ve wished death upon defense attorney and cop who both lied. For destroying my life with lies, I feel death is suitable. Would I myself inflict harm upon them? No because they’re not worth it. And it’s not worth destroying my life any further than they already have. Many people are living under the delusion that the justice system is about rehabilitation but it’s not. As long as big business plays a part, corruption will continue to run rampant.
Sounds like “Future Crime.” How about a case by case basis? They’re grouping, which is still a low number. 5.3%. Individually, the number is even lower. They are fighting hard for the federal dollars to keep and maintain a registry, along with funds to keep prisons full. And legislators have vested interests in keeping private prisons full because stocks.
All of us are a risk of maybe, woulda, coulda, shoulda.
I might kill someone, I may rob a bank, I may not pay my taxes, I might escape and head to Mexico, I might burn down a dairy queen.
I think by now you know I am not going to do any of those things.
For me it has been 32 years since my crime. I have not gotten so much as a traffic ticket. The registry is not keeping me from committing another crime. All the registry is doing is giving a false security to neighbors and putting my family members of being harmed or even killed, which has happened all across the U.S according to stories we have read on F.A.C.
They say at any time we could commit another sex crime? Well I counter that by also telling the truth, everyone on the registry at any time could be killed by a vigilante, as well as our family members.
Well said, and lets not forget about the tens of millions of people NOT on the registry, who have never committed a crime in their lives, who MIGHT commit a sex crime.
News flash…I was not on the registry and had a clean record when I screwed up, just like thousands of other people. The registry today does not prevent me from doing anything wrong. What prevents me from screwing up is my desire to live a productive life, to take care of my family and hang out with my friends. Any time I might decide to do something wrong, which will never happen, the registry will NEVER prevent it.
Here’s our take on the hearing:
https://parsol.org/parsol-responds-to-may-23-2023-scopa-hearing-in-comm-v-torsilieri/
I listened to the arguments yesterday morning. Very good & interesting. ‘Sure hope we get a win! 👍🏻