PITTSBURGH — A Butler County public defender argued Wednesday in front of the state's Supreme Court against the government's right to put convicted sexual predators under a special criminal designation for life without due process.

Joseph Smith, 37, who has been with the public defender's office for nearly 10 years, appeared before the seven justices in Pittsburgh to argue for the constitutional right to due process and the right to reputation, both of which are afforded in the state's constitution.

The Supreme Court decided to hear the case, Commonwealth v. Butler, after the state's Superior Court sided with Smith in a case dealing with a part of the state's Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act.

The case dates to 2016, when Joseph Dean Butler pleaded guilty in Butler County court to statutory sexual assault and corruption of minors for his consensual relationship with a minor.

As part of Butler's punishment, he was designated as a sexually violent predator, forcing him to register with state police for life.

Smith argued that his client was being robbed of his rights by being designated a sexually violent predator, and the Superior Court agreed with him. Prosecutors then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, bringing the case to oral arguments Wednesday.

“In common law, they would've waited 10 days and hung this gentleman and that would be it,” said Justice Max Baer on Wednesday.

In 2017, the state's Supreme Court decided in a separate case — Commonwealth v. Muniz — that the state's sexual registration requirements are a criminal punishment rather than a civil matter. Smith argued that the sexually violent predator designation is an unconstitutional form of punishment since a jury isn't used in the consideration of its application.

Under the act, a state board analyzes the case to determine if the offender should be given the lifetime designation.

The board then makes its recommendation — in this case the Butler County Common Pleas Court — which then determines if clear and convincing evidence has been presented that proves an offender should be designated sexually violent.

“It's a lower standard compared to beyond a reasonable doubt that is made by a judge, not a jury,” Smith said.

In Butler's case, the designation switched him from a Tier I offender for 15 years to a lifetime sexually violent offender. But the Superior Court decided in Butler's case that this was illegal since a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard was not used to make the designation.

On Wednesday, Deputy Carson Morris, prosecuting the case for the government, argued the sexually violent designation is needed because it places felons in a higher class of reoffenders, allowing prosecutors to seek more stringent punishment if future crimes are committed.

He told the justices the special designation allows the government to identify offenders who have a mental abnormality or personality disorder that puts them in a higher class of offenders.

But Smith argued during his oral presentation that the designation violates the state's constitution and represents governmental overreach. If the government wants to continue to use the sexually violent designation, he argued, there should be a separate process decided by a jury, much like the way the death penalty is handled.

“The (sexually violent predator) procedure is the most unconstitutional law we have,” Smith said. “They magnify constitutional issues we might not otherwise get a chance to see and address.”

“Well that puts the bunny in the hat,” said Justice David Wecht, arguing Smith is jumping ahead in his arguments for the court.

Smith persisted, arguing that the state's Legislature has ratcheted up the sexual registration laws for the past 10 years, creating an overly punitive system.

“You're portraying the Assembly as going more punitive, but you could argue the other way too,” Wecht said.

Several justices told Smith that the points he argued were beyond the scope of the issue being considered by the Supreme Court.

“I'm asking the court to empower the right to reputation,” Smith said. “This is akin to the death penalty.”

Justice Baer suggested they might consider that issue in a separate decision.

In deciding the case, the Supreme Court justices could confirm the decision their counterparts made in the Superior Court. Specifically, the Superior Court found that Butler's designation as a sexually violent predator for life was unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.

“As such, trial courts may no longer designate convicted defendants as SVPs, nor may they hold SVP hearings, until our General Assembly enacts a constitutional designation mechanism,” the Superior Court order states.

Or the Supreme Court could overturn the Superior Court decision and redesignate Butler as a sexually violent predator.

Speaking after Wednesday's arguments, Smith said that while many people may not care about the rights of sexual deviants, the case demonstrates the rights that the government can take away from people. And, he said, there should be constitutional checks on the government's ability to do this, much like the death penalty.

“This is the procedure you have to go through when trying to change the law,” Smith said. “It's our job to protect the client and everyone else who could become a client. That's what we do. This is a leading edge constitutional issue.”

For now, he said, “We wait for the court.”