Colorado’s Sex Offender Laws Create ‘Endless Punishment’: Critics
Critics of Colorado’s sex-offender registration system charge it demoralizes and endlessly punishes people who genuinely want to be better, reports the Denver Post. They claim the Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB), a 25 member group which sets rules for evaluation, treatment and monitoring of sex offenders, teaches offenders to see themselves as incurable monsters’ decades after their offenses at the expense of more effective and humanizing therapies.
“Registration does not work. It does not keep us any safer,” said Emma Mclean-Riggs, an ACLU of Colorado fellow experienced in working with minors assigned to the sex-offender registry. A survivor herself, Maclean-Riggs says the system turns sexual offenders into “monstrous” predators and does little to protect the public. “Because I’m a survivor I care about exactly one thing: what works,” she adds, noting that Colorado is not very good at helping sexual abuse victims. A recent scathing report by the state auditor also found that board members were voting on policy matters to benefit their own firms and the delays in getting people past their parole-eligibility date into treatment. Forty-seven convicted sex offenders got out of prison last year without receiving treatment, the report found.
As a sex offender living in Colorado I can personally attest to the states continued denial that the registry is punitive and that the SOMB is made up of members whose best interest is feathering their nest on the backs of those that are caught up in this. Even when recognized that polygraphs don’t work, they continue. Plethysmographs…ok.we may as well get the psychics and tea leave readers on the SOMB. Once you become entangled in this system, you become encumbered for life. I plead guilty to my crime over 22 years ago and received 5 years probation. Before I was off probation my victim daughter initiated reconciliation and on our first meeting said “dad, I love you. I forgive you. I have met the man I want to marry and I want you to walk me down the aisle.”
In a recent meeting of the legislative committee some changes were made but lifetime registration was overwhelmingly reinforced mostly by a group of Colorado DA’s. I find it disingenuous that those sworn to uphold the law and to seek truth would turn a blind eye to the evidence. It’s a sham and shame on them and yet it continues. Best practices….out the window. The dark ages work just fine. Politically only a few are standing up for the truth but for the other politicos who have more fear of loosing the next election, they don’t have the necessary male appendages to be worth of their office. No disrespect intended for the good ladies in our legislature. Where I live is the largest conservative county in Colorado however Rep. Pete Lee (D) is doing yeoman’s work on this legislation and deserves a salute.
The polygraphs required during probation in Colorado truly are a joke. A person must continue taking them until they “pass”. If they truly believed the results, then why require someone to continue to take the same test over and over until they get the answer they want? It’s a complete scam and expensive too. Our former governor seemed to think it was fine however. https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/contact7/colorado-governor-vetoes-bill-that-banned-conflicts-of-interest-on-sex-offender-management-board
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maryland-judge-kills-himself-moments-184959698.html
Yup. I thought about it before turning myself in. Think about it Everytime I register, Everytime I think someone looks at me like they know. It haunts me continually. Not going to say he was right to do that, but not going to say he was wrong either.
In a twist of fate, here is some of the best news I have seen in Florida.
No longer being asked about criminal history when applying for a job? Well read and be shocked at who is implementing this.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/orange-county-government-to-stop-asking-job-applicants-if-they-have-criminal-convictions/ar-AAOlbpw?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531
Cherokee:
You’re much more optimistic than I am. They’ll still run background checks and dismiss a registrant’s qualifications based on the charge. I’ve experienced that a lot the last six years.
BWJ
Yeah after I posted it, I did some more research. What the Hell difference does it make if they are just going to deny you anyway? Sugar coated for the news but black listed in reality. Very odd.
Like a lot of good news we get. Read the fine print and the air is let out of our tires. Back to the drawing board to regroup.
Yes, we have “ban the box” in my state as well. It is just an attempt by the legislature to appear as if they are helping ex felons to reintegrate and to avoid the likes of the ACLU. Political posturing. It would save everyone a lot of time and energy to keep the box and deny an applicant on the spot.
Veritas.
Interesting thoughts. I can’t say I’ve thought much about “ban the box” in general. I haven’t filled out an application for decades and it seems like it wouldn’t matter much for a PFR because the Oppression Lists (OLs) are a whole different category/scale of problems. Makes “ban the box” seemingly inconsequential.
I have more compassion for people who have had criminal problems than I do for people who have not. I feel that most of them are good people but had circumstances that led to bad behavior. Circumstances that for most people (even the “good” people), would lead to bad behavior. But, I do find myself discriminating against non-sex-crime felons simply because I feel that they judge sex-crime felons. I’ve always found it crazy that there are so many felons sitting in prison for heinous crimes that judge people who have committed sex crimes that didn’t even lead to incarceration. I find it shocking that a recently released felon might be judging me!
Before I get significantly involved (hiring, helping, friend, whatever) with anyone, I find out what they think of the OLs. If I don’t like their beliefs, I keep them away from me. I expend probably triple the normal effort when I’m dealing with a felon. I vet them before I start a relationship and I continue to do so after. But if they are a decent person, then it doesn’t matter how much I vet them, there are no issues.
The box I need for vetting people is “Do you think the Sex Offense Registries should exist?”.
CherokeeJ…
IT IS JUST MORE ‘MARY POPPINS’ CRAP…
‘TAKE A SPOONFUL OF SUGAR TO MAKE TO MEDICINE GO DOWN’
ONCE THEY DO THEY DO THE BACKGROUND CHECK, YOU ARE TOAST!
…OR TOASTED, IN SOME CASES!
Yes
It does seem pointless. Take the question off the application to appease the “Bleeding hearts” as they call people who want justice. But then crush you like a bug when they call to tell you the position has been filled by someone who does not have a record. If they even call you at all, which is not very likely.
When I was fresh out of D.O.C , I had a stellar resume’ and got so many interviews. But the little box you check for a conviction always got me thrown in the “Hell no” pile. I had a college degree. Well several. I even went back to school to be more relevant. It got me tons of interviews but few call backs.
Back in the day, labor jobs like construction use to hire ex felons but nowadays with insurance companies not wanting to cover businesses with felons, especially with a sex offense, even janitors positions are off the table.
When I was on probation, my Probation officer got me a job at a call center. I think everyone in there was fresh out of prison and I even recruited a few people I knew who couldn’t get a job. I finally left there because the place was so shady that I felt uncomfortable.
https://www.woodtv.com/news/target-8/changes-to-sex-offender-list-cause-confusion/
Riff
This article makes a point most do not realize. The lady was quoted as saying she feels safe for her kids knowing registered sex offenders are not allowed there. I hate to tell you lady, but it is the ones you don’t know about you have to worry about. I see on the news all the time teachers who cleared an FBI background check, groom a student.