Reply To: SCOTUS Denies to Hear Muniz


My understanding was that it is 100% clear and understood that those who are already finished with their time has nothing to worry about. So your group, those who have finished, have nothing to worry about. Lea did say a lawyer COULD speed things up, but she also said it was a waste of time and money.
Think about it. A few months either way is not going to break the bank. I can understand the whole “It’s my money. I WANT IT NOW” mentality. However, it is not helpful.

Also, PSP is NOT refusing to take people off. They are just doing it in their own way. We have to remember HB1952 is going to change the number of people affected by Muniz. At least until 1952 can be challenged. The last thing PSP wants to do is mail a letter saying you are off, and then having to mail a second letter that says “Oh no. Due to 1952, you have to go back on”. So yes some people are unable to get their case reviewed as of right now. However, that does not mean PSP is “refusing” to review their cases. They simply do not have all the information they need. This is why I am not on the initial review list. I haven’t finished my time, so therefore 1952 may make me finish my time. I believe that 1952 cannot be applied retroactively but until the Pa Supreme Court says so, most likely than not it will be applied retroactively to Pre-Sorna people who have not finished their time.

We have to remember that Pa has conceded that they cannot increase the length of your original sentence due to Muniz. No matter how narrow you interpret Muniz that fact cannot be disputed. The only question that remains for those Pre-Sorna people who have not completed their time, can they be forced to register under 1952. Obviously, it is the position of Pa yes they can. Obviously, we disagree. However, no matter what you can only do what your original sentence says. Since you have done that, you cannot do more time.
Some people are confusing 1952 and Sorna. Sorna DID say we are INCREASING the length of your pre sorna sentence, and too bad about you. 1952 does not say that.
To me, the idea that we want to put your picture name and offense on a list but only if you committed a sex crime is targeting. The argument that sex offenders are more likely to re-offend than other criminals has been at least discredited. At the very least, the registry should be viewed by law enforcement only.