Vincent Carroll argues in The Denver Post that Colorado ought to make its sex offender registry more meaningful to the public by assessing actual risk and removing some names. Full Opinion Piece
Related posts
-
CO: Colorado Jail Guard Must Stand Trial for Opening Accused Sex Offender’s Cell, Subjecting Him to Assault
Source: prisonlegalnews.org 7/1/24 On December 13, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado... -
CO: How Did a Local From a Prominent American Indian Tribe Get Stuck in a Sex Offender System That Could Keep Him Behind Bars for Life?
Source: 5280.com June 2024 Most mornings last year, John Red Cloud would rise before daybreak in... -
CO: Neighbors protest facility run by Colorado mental health agency over sex offender claims
Source: cbsnews.com 4/6/24 Northglenn neighbors were out in their community to voice their opposition to a...
Ok, to borrow what someone else said on here a while back: “assessing actual risk” sounds great in theory. But in reality, how do you ‘assess actual risk?’ If they are thinking about using the flawed Static-99R, then that is *not* at all a better alternative.
I think once you finish probation or parole, that should be it. No more registration. Or maybe fix the registration scheme at 10 years maximum. But if they are going to allow registration schemes to continue, don’t forget to call it “punishment” too (because we all know it is).
When it comes to this “risk assessment” bullshi*: Forget about it!
WOW! Amazing op-ed! I agree 100%.
NO registry period. If you are on paper, you are on paper and have to note it. If you are off paper, you are off paper and should be left to live your life. If someone is that much of a threat, then there are ways to deal with them. No registry duration is going to be enough for some people whereas those who want to reintegrate back into society are prevented with doing so by long durations. Those states who are creating new registries are doing a disservice to their citizens and those citizens will find out how bad the registry is they are on.
I read this article when it was first published and did not note then, but do note now that CO polygraph dude on the SOMB is similar to CA’s situation with their assessment dude on the SOMB…an exact replica for a conflict of interest.
“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,”