Reducing the Number of Sex Offenders Required to Register

Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling will reduce number of sex offenders required to register for life

The dispute before the Supreme Court hinged on the interpretation of the wording of a state law that requires lifetime registration for some sex offenders who receive “two or more convictions.” A Supreme Court majority…concluded the wording means sex offenders in some cases must be convicted of such crimes for two separate incidents to trigger the lifetime registration mandate.

MORE:

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/08/supreme_court_ruling_will_redu.html

(This is quite lengthy and after reading we ask that you forward to sexual crimes defense attorneys, law school professors, legislators and other registrant families to do the same).

Two good decisions from Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, both concerning *lifetime* registration for those convicted of certain sex offenses, see below. The rulings are expected to benefit many–a path to freedom for some current registrants and will make it harder to impose this punishment in the future. The Pennsylvania State Police (which runs the registry) had been interpreting the law very aggressively to force at least one man to register for life. Pennsylvania’s top court put a stop to that, and made it plain to lower courts they cannot use such reasoning to justify lifetime registration. Kudos to all the lawyers and others who helped win these cases! The court has several other sex offense registry-related appeals pending, let’s hope for more good news from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

What about the registry? Dion Harrell was wrongfully convicted of rape in 1988 and served four years in prison; just this month he was exonerated after a long legal battle. It’s quite a story but the *stunner* is what The New York Times’ Alan Feuer reports about Harrell’s nearly two decades on the registry, have a look. –Bill Dobbs

A.S. vs. Pennsylvania State Police

Pennsylvania Supreme Court No. 24 MAP 2014

Majority opinion of the court, issued Aug. 15, 2016:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-36-2016mo%20-%201027723548619209.pdf?cb=1

Concurring opinion by Justice Donohue:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-36-2016co%20-%201027723548618924.pdf?cb=1

Dissenting opinion by Justice Todd:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-36-2016do%20-%201027723548618915.pdf?cb=1

Dissenting opinion by Justice Wecht:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-36-2016do1%20-%201027723548619003.pdf?cb=1

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Lutz-Morrison

Pennsylvania Supreme Court No. 28 MAP 2015