ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (05/21 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




CO: Colorado District Attorneys Sound The Alarm Over Bill To Revamp Sex Offender Management

UPDATED: CO: Bill To Transform Sex Offender Management Pulled After Claims It Would Hurt Public Safety [ – 6/3/21]

[ – 5/24/21]

DENVER (CBS4) – A bill dealing with sex crimes has exploded in controversy at the State Capitol. District attorneys say the bill would allow some of the state’s most violent sex offenders to be released from prison without any treatment.

The bill sponsor, Rep. Kerry Tipper, says hundreds of them aren’t getting treatment now because of a long waitlist even though a District Court ruled that sex offenders have a constitutional right to treatment in a reasonable time period. Tipper says she’s trying to address that.

The Colorado District Attorneys Council says returning sex offenders to the community before they receive treatment is not the answer.

The council says the bill would allow the parole board to release people convicted of violent sex crimes as long as they’re signed up for community-based treatment and are considered a manageable risk.

It would also prevent treatment providers from limiting an offenders contact with children without a court order and would create a new risk-based sex offender registry. A nine-person board would decide who should be on the registry. Police and prosecutors would no longer get a vote.

Tipper says her only goal is to make sure offenders get the treatment they need.

Read the full article


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Kudos to this representative.

Funny how the DAs want to complain that this rep wants to break the cycle of requiring “treatment” without providing it and claim that can be addressed, but offer no suggestions to do that. They also complain about the prior child sex offenders that would benefit if the bill is passed (and how many of those are from the TCAP stings or forced CP possession, I wonder) – fear mongering at its finest.

I still take issue with the whole “treatment” aspect, in that I remain convinced that nearly all sex crime is the result of poor judgment than mental illness and that the court/state ordered “treatment” does absolutely nothing for the genuinely mentally ill. Nonetheless, I do applaud the lady’s effort. I’m not hopeful her bill will pass, but am hopeful that it will inspire other efforts to curb the indefinite detention of those convicted for sex crimes.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dustin

Wow, some rational thought out of a legislator. I particularly like that the prosecutors and LE are kept out of the argument. They shouldn’t be there anyway! LE’s job is done once the Law has been Enforced, thus the term. The prosecutor’s job is done once the prosecution is over, thus the term. Any involvement those entities have after that should not extend beyond those explicit duties. No law breaking? No LE, and therefore no prosecutor, involvement. The prosecutor doesn’t get to hold sway over every single person ever convicted, ad infinitum. The prosecutor has already had months and months to build the case and desired punishment; they do not deserve extra swings after the umpire (read: judge) has made the call.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x