PA Court upholds sex offender registration as constitutional

An attempt by a Petersburg man to be released from lifetime sexual offender registration failed last month when Pennsylvania’s Superior Court asserted registration is a “non-punitive, collateral consequence of his conviction” and not a violation of his constitutional rights. … According to the decision issued by the Superior Court in Howard’s case,

Read more

Help us reach more people by Sharing or Liking this post.

2 Thoughts to “PA Court upholds sex offender registration as constitutional”

Leave a Comment

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone and language of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Refrain from comments containing references to religion unless it clearly relates to the post being commented on.
  • Do not post in all caps.
  • We will generally not allow links; the moderator may consider the value of a link.
  • We will not post lengthy comments.
  • Please do not go into details about your story; post these on our Tales from the Registry.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites.
  • Please do not solicit funds.
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them. It will not be displayed on the site.

  1. Max Freeman

    The registry is unconstitutional in so many ways having a direct negative impact on the offender and his family.
    It doesn’t keep anyone safe, and does way more harm then good. Anyone serving his or her sentence should be allowed to re-enter society to lead a productive life. Anything less is still restraint and punishment. After counseling if they are still deemed unsafe, it would be The legal duty of law enforcement to keep track not the entire public. The public condemns Any offender as if they were violent.

  2. Annoymous

    I am just banging my head up against a wall after reading this case. This man is beyond ignorant thinking to file a appeal on his sentence for “cruel and unusual punishment”. Now we just have a other bad case floating around for the States to use to protect themself. It would’ve been one thing if he challenge due process like in Powell V. Kell, then maybe he would’ve won.
    If you’re going file a appeal do your research first and see what cases give you a fighting chance not a guaranteed lost for example Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) means cruel and unusual punishment alone won’t work. Let this be a lesson on what not to do.