VIDEO: Pennsylvania vs. Torsilieri Oral Arguments
“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.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.