« Big talk from Charles Koch about big (money) criminal justice reform efforts | Main | Split Ninth Circuit panel reverses Arizona death sentence over sharp dissent »
December 29, 2014
Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares state's sex offender registration regulations violate juve offenders' due process rights
Via How Appealing, I see that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued this majority opinion in In the Interest of J.B., J-44A-G-2014 (Pa. Dec. 29, 2014), declaring unconstitutional part of the state's sex offender registration laws (over a lone justice's dissenting opinion). Here is a portion from the start and end of the majority opinion:
In this case, we consider the constitutionality of provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) as applied to juveniles. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10-9799.41. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 722(7), we review this case directly from the order of the York County Court of Common Pleas holding the statute unconstitutional as violative of the ex post facto clause, protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and due process rights through the use of an irrebuttable presumption. In the Interest of J.B. et al., No. CP-67-JV-726-2010 (CP York Nov. 1, 2013). After review, we affirm the determination that SORNA violates juvenile offenders’ due process rights through the use of an irrebuttable presumption....
Given that juvenile offenders have a protected right to reputation encroached by SORNA’s presumption of recidivism, where the presumption is not universally true, and where there is a reasonable alternative means for ascertaining the likelihood of recidivating, we hold that the application of SORNA’s current lifetime registration requirements upon adjudication of specified offenses violates juvenile offenders’ due process rights by utilizing an irrebuttable presumption.
December 29, 2014 at 07:44 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201b8d0b3c0ff970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares state's sex offender registration regulations violate juve offenders' due process rights:
Comments
I appreciated the language of that last cited paragraph, referring to empirical evidence. So a kid is arrested for peeing in an alley instead of being given a time out in the corner, is it really necessary to list him permanently?
Then the list warns that any form of harassment of those listed will be prosecuted. So I do not understand its purpose outside of government make work. It has no effect. It serves no purpose.It has no benefit. It prevents no harm. It was never tested before enactment nor after. It fails to meet modern standards of evidence based practice.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 30, 2014 12:40:37 AM
This seems like a very notable opinion, and I wonder if not a sign of things to come. It strikes me that this language:
Given that juvenile offenders have a protected right to reputation encroached by SORNA’s presumption of recidivism, where the presumption is not universally true, and where there is a reasonable alternative means for ascertaining the likelihood of recidivating, we hold that the application of SORNA’s current lifetime registration requirements upon adjudication of specified offenses violates juvenile offenders’ due process rights by utilizing an irrebuttable presumption.
Is equally applicable to an 18-year-old as it is to a 17-year-old in that the irrefutable presumption of risk seems equally offensive in both cases.
Posted by: Guy | Dec 30, 2014 9:37:03 AM
Guy:
Like I often say, the mental gymnastics of the legal profession and its "judges" (what a misnomer) often have very little basis in reality. Not everyone kisses the rings of the new "High Priests".
I fail to see how the the reasoning for unconsitutionality is demarcated by the distinction of the protected rights of "juveniles" vs. the protected rights of "adults".
Everyone with a brain knows that SO Laws as currently constructed are unconstitutional, except for the "deep thinking legal eagles" who actually pretend to practice this so-called profession.
Posted by: albeed | Dec 30, 2014 6:55:54 PM
There should be NO distinction or nuance when it comes to children vs adults made to register. This is just a curve ball to "humanize" children because placing them on the registry would "ruin" their lives. They say that as though adults lives don't matter which is arrogant and flippant. The determination (of who gets on Megan's hit list) should be given judicial discretion during the sentencing on a case by case.
As GUY said, the wagon circling continues with ferocity and mean-spirited hatred around Megan's Law's lofty "protect children at all costs" mission statement. Which, ironically and sadly, is an unobtainable pipe dream.
Posted by: Lance Mitaro | Dec 31, 2014 12:56:17 AM
Once an accused has served their lawful or unlawful sentence, that should be the end! If they should continue or do harm to another, then you try to rehabilitate them longer or confine them to a mental institution. Mass murderers and the mentally violent that are not able to be helped is a different story in my opinion.
Posted by: LC in Texas | Jan 1, 2015 9:20:24 PM