CO: Senate committee turns down bill to change indefinite sentencing for sex offenders

Admin

The Senate Judiciary Committee Monday voted down a bill that would change the state’s laws on indefinite sentencing for sex offenders. The measure, Senate Bill 17, would allow judges to determine on a case-by-case basis whether to sentence sex offenders to “indeterminate sentences,” which in some cases means a life sentence. Full Article

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

Funny how the AG complains that judges don’t have enough information to make a reasonable discretionary sentencing opinion. Does that apply when the DAs recommend the maximum sentence they typically recommend (and court usually grants)? Guessing not, considering she also worries that a judge might give a lighter sentence in some cases (God forbid).

0
Reply

What is just as interesting is there are some legislative personnel who don’t mind judges thinking on their own (with some that do mind those who think on their own), but also seem to mind when it comes to DAs who have latitude also (just as much as judges do) to consider everything involved instead of going for the jugular of worst case overall (perhaps to make political names for themselves). Again, legislating strictness from the capitol building instead of letting justice do as it should do.

This is also the same AG that is fighting Judge Matsch’s ruling in the Tenth Circuit and is now running for Gov of CO.

0
Reply