CO: Freeing sex offenders (Opinion)

The backlog of sex offenders waiting for treatment in the Colorado Department of Corrections has gotten a lot of attention lately, and with some justification.

If these child molesters and rapists want to admit to the grievous harm they’ve caused their victims and learn how to manage their deviant behavior, by all means, they should. And Colorado taxpayers ought to gladly ante up for more counselors to provide that treatment.

But that doesn’t mean these offenders automatically should be released by their minimum eligible parole date. Note the word “minimum.” It means just that. And any lawmakers who are contemplating loosening up Colorado’s lifetime supervision law, passed in 1998, might want to think long and hard about the implications.  Full Article

Related: COLORADO’S STRICT SEX ABUSE SENTENCING

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow, what a horrible and heavily one-sided “Opinion” Article! Not one ounce of true journalism in there!

The fact that she (Alicia Caldwell) even suggests that law makers shouldn’t proceed with what’s right or fight against the unconstitutional nature because of a chance at political “backlash” is beyond irresponsible!

The article gives ZERO insight to the opposite si of the argument (not one grain) and glosses over the fact that lifetime supervision means permanent incarceration! This is a BIAS article, not an opinion one.

PS: I love the bit where she says to ignore the argument that the majority are first time offenders and to “Ask for a case number” instead of providing ANY type of facts to back up her claims. How about YOU provide a study to show that they are wrong Miss Caldwell! Oh wait…..that’s right, it’s just your OPINION.

Ugh. . .

I remember the case of the teacher, the one mentioned in the related article. Given the availability of “treatment” and whether or not his “progress” is deemed acceptable (by whom and based on what criteria???) it is entirely possible that this man will spend the rest of his life in prison (over and above the minimum 10! years). For a non-forcible relationship with a 17 year old. In a state, mind you, where the age of consent is 17. Wow. Just wow.

And all this in a country that has no problem justifying dropping missiles on little kids sleeping in their beds at night. Sometimes I wonder when it was exactly that I wandered into this bad movie.