Should Colorado still use the term “sex offender”? A state board is considering new language.
Seeking to move away from labels that can work against a person’s rehabilitation, Colorado’s Sex Offender Management Board plans to vote Friday to replace the term “sex offender” in its own guiding principles.
The board is considering several new terms, including clients, adults or individuals “who commit sexual offenses,” “who engage in sexually abusive behavior,” who are “in treatment for engaging in sexually abusive behaviors” or “who have committed sexual offenses.”
The board, which governs the standards for treatment of people convicted of sex offenses, is far from united on the issue of “person-first language” in this context. Members split 8-7 in the spring on a vote to adopt new guiding principles concerning language. Friday’s expected vote would finish off that process.
“I think the biggest thing is research really shows us that assigning a label has the potential for negative effects in rehabilitation,” said Kimberly Kline, a licensed counselor and chair of the board.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
THE TERM ‘SEX OFFENDER’ MEANS THAT ONE IS STILL SEX OFFENDING
SO, ON ITS FACE, THE ACRONYM, ‘SORNA’, IS WRONG!
-IT MEANS THAT WE ARE ALL STILL OFFENDING
I WILL NEVER EVER SIGN A DOCUMENT THAT HAS ‘SEX OFFENDER’ ON IT BECAUSE IT IMPLIES THAT I AM SEX OFFENDING, WHICH I AM NOT AND NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL!
EVERYONE, NEEDS TO FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
NEVER CAVE IN TO THESE DRACONIAN PEOPLES!
Truth
I use to live near a lady who once told me “All of you on that list are a bunch of rapists”. Really?
So Someone looking at porn is a rapist? Who are they raping? Perhaps the computer monitor?
Amerika is full of truly stupid, hateful “people”. They are of no concern other than the fact that they suck up resources and cause problems. I certainly wouldn’t care about anything they say or think.
At FAC, we believe in person-first language.
Until the state actually proposes it, at which point we refer it as “nonsense,” “irrelevant,” “potatoes” (?), “just another label,” and “a waste of time and money,” according to the comments below.
Go on calling them sex offenders if convicted if you prefer.
To me, the most straightforward terms are “registrant” (per RBG’s classic dissent in Does) and “former sex offender” (per ACLU Jeanne Baker’s televised debate with Ron Book).
PFR, by contrast, is not straightforward. It’s hyperbolic while making it sound like we’re hiding something. I’ll call people PFR’s once the public replaces the term “taxpayers” with “PFPT’s” (Persons Forced to Pay Taxes).
not sure how extraneous “if convicted” got into the above other than errant auto-complete
@Jacob
As a PFR, I am doing so against my will in a system where registration is felt to be needed for a false sense of security for those who believe it is needed; hence, “forced” is appropriate here so one can avoid a punishment from a regulatory scheme. I know I am not a danger and have two professionally attained assessments seven years apart to prove it; therefore, no one needs to have a false sense of security from me because of something someone else feels needs to be levied against me.
The RBG term “registrant” is more apropos because it is the truth but still is forced on some of populace because of what certain people think. She could have said “forced registrant” to be more correct of those who don’t need it.
PFR is the best term. It better helps illustrate the immortality, stupidity, unfairness, and the lack of basis in reality that is the Oppression Lists.
If the scumbag criminal regimes don’t like PFR then they can just call me enemy. Domestic enemy, maybe?
Taxes are not comparable to registration. Do they inflict taxes just in certain people? Retroactively change it?
While the thinking seems to be in the right direction, all the terms seem to just change a label into a definition. The definition is still wrong.
“If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.” – Fox Mulder
Still no matter how you look at it is just another label. It’s not changing the laws. The ordinances that have been put on us are still punitive.
You want to promote rehabilitation? Stop wasting time and money on coming up with new terminology and just eliminate the registries.
Problem solved.
I can’t believe they’re even considering this nonsense. Any euphemism they come up will still be disparaging and an afront to basic dignity and respect.
It seems they’re trying every way in to world to give off the illusion that the registry is non-punitive, necessary and proper.
You can bet your bottom dollar they will never come up with a re-branded label that elicits sympathy from the public.