Source: thefederalist.com 11/20/21
The Sex Offender Management Board of the State of Colorado has voted to rebrand the term “sex offender,” replacing it with the euphemistic phrase, “adults who commit sexual offenses.”
The board’s decision passed following a 10-6 vote on Nov. 19 will not change the language used in criminal justice proceedings, the Colorado Sex Offender registry, or the name of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board itself. It does, however, apply to the “Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders.” Some on the board argued this new phrasing will aid rehabilitation efforts.
The SOMB reportedly considered a number of other terms to replace the phrase “sex offender,” including people who are “in treatment for engaging in sexually abusive behaviors” and those “who have committed sexual offenses.” Following this vote, the proposed change will be open for public comment for 20 days, and then the board will vote again on whether to alter the decision and make it final.
The rationale for the language shift is reducing stigma against those convicted of sex crimes, with the Denver Post claiming “many attorneys, people on the sex offender registry and even some victims have criticized Colorado’s management of this population as overly harsh and counterproductive to the goal of rehabilitation.”
God, this made me laugh so hard…because it sounds even worse!
“adults who commit sexual offenses.”
This is very, very present tense and plural…like an on going malady.
If they really wanted to rebrand and rebrand with some honesty, it would go like this:
“Adults who have committed (past tense) a sexual offense, that generally was uniquely situational and with a 95% probability will not commit another sexual offense.”
The State of Colorado should have come to me and I would have done the re-branding for them and would not have charged them a cent!
Best Wishes, James I
Amazing! The Colorado SOMB exchanged one lousy term for another. “Adults who commit sex offenses” is written in the present tense, and implies ongoing activity. The article says a past tense term, “those who committed sex offenses” was rejected.
Two prosecutors were quoted in the article. One, Michael J Allen pontificated that, “there is no reputable study in existence that shows that such a change in terminology will have any measurable effect on the successful treatment of sex offenders and recidivism.” I find it hypocritical for prosecutors to decry the lack of such studies when they routinely dismiss “reputable” studies indicating that those who have committed a sex offense don’t represent an elevated risk to society, and that recidivism is worsened by the mere existence of registries no matter what they are called.
Veritas.
Nothing more than window dressing, or as the oh-so-wise Sarah Palin would say: “This is like putting lipstick on a pig”. It changes nothing. If they want to change anything, either end the registry altogether, or at minimum, do away with Megan’s Law with public shaming and humiliation as their goal. Anything less is adding insult to injury. And in this case, I agree that this change is actually worse
Can the board get any dumber? People on the registry aren’t currently committing sex crimes, however these people and Colorado DAs can’t face the truth. Time from them all to light a few joints and maybe they will pass something more realistic; but I won’t hold my breath.
If people aren’t currently committing a crime they shouldn’t have a label ending in er, since that mean it’s continuing. Try Ed at the end because it’s past tense. Boards are nothing more than dance partners with state and it’s conies.
So much for my hope of them switching to past tense as they made this change. I agree that this is even worse.
Besides the obvious, what about non-adult sex offenders? What will they call them now?
Any change in wording is better than none. A person accused of a sex crime is better than a sex offender. A registrant or Registered Citizen is even better.
The bigger problem is that the term sex offender is an umbrella term that is meaningless. A murderer committed a murder. A rapist committed a rape. Past tense. Offender is a past tense word.
The issue, as I see it, is that by classifying so many actions under one umbrella term, the general public immediately assumes the worse. Is a peeping tom, or someone who had some cp on a computer the same as a someone who molested a child?
So yeah, changing the terminology would be better than nothing.
The article also mentions the blowback the professor is getting for suggesting that the term MAPs be used for people attracted to minors. The term is already used in the MAP community (just like registrants or RC in the SRO community) but suggest that a neutral term be used. Haters just have to be haters, right?
How can minors be considered adults who commit sex crimes while still underage. This label assumes everyone blacklisted are adults when it isn’t true. I’ve got a label for the board, DA, and anyone else that they are overpaid do nothings in bed with Colorado. “ Take me home to a place where sanity belongs, Colorado drink your moonshine and then get drunk like a skunk. Next time you vote you can use evidence and reality. I’ve got a feeling you can do it, but you are in way to deep.”
Sorry every time I think of Colorado John Denver is on my mind.
Please let me add, or 18 year old adults not old enough to gamble or drink and have a non intercourse bf and gf relationship with a 4 year age gap! Please let’s add all the variables Colorado!!
I saw the stupid title of an article that talked about Colorado changing from “sex offender” to “person first” language. Great, but how about they also revise their wording to make it clear that it is PAST TENSE, not present tense! 😡
For example, “person once convicted of a sexual offense, possibly a rather minor one and possibly decades ago, with no criminal involvement since”.
Oh sorry – too many words?? 😒
Yes, we just continue nibbling around the edges, when In reality, all the registries need to be scrapped altogether.
I do not get why you chose to use a news site that caters to extreme right wingers as opposed to a mainstream media article. While the mainstream media gets many things wrong, their bias is not as blatant than the bias shown in The Federalist. If there was a print edition of The Federalist it would be printed on toilet paper.