CO: Federal judge allows 2 men to sue over lack of access to sex offender treatment

Source:  coloradopolitics.com 5/25/23

Incarceration without access to treatment ‘alters the conditions of an inmate’s confinement in a way that can only set back his rehabilitation,’ wrote Judge Nina Wang

Two men incarcerated for sex offenses, who have been moved around to various facilities where they were unable to participate in legally required treatment, may sue Colorado corrections officials for violating their constitutional rights, a federal judge ruled this week.

Gino ___ and Brian ___ filed suit last year, alleging the only thing preventing them from being paroled is their failure to complete sex offender treatment. However, according to ___ , the Colorado Department of Corrections is not abiding by its own policy for prioritizing detainees for treatment and is instead considering “the convenience of CDOC staff” in its decisions.

U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang agreed the men had credibly alleged the state is violating their right to due process. Without questioning the legitimacy of Colorado’s entire scheme for punishing sex offenses — laid out in the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998 — Wang believed one specific aspect is problematic: SOLSA requires treatment as part of sex offender sentencing, but the state is not providing it.

“Without treatment, the conditions of SOLSA confinement are fundamentally and irretrievably altered: the inmate loses a segment of the sentence, which the General Assembly deemed necessary and appropriate to punishment, rehabilitation, and reentry into society at large,” she wrote in a May 23 order.

Wang also took the unusual step of authorizing pro bono legal representation for ___ , who have litigated their case by themselves from prison. Judges can make such a decision when, among other things, there is merit to a self-represented party’s claims.

Read the 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.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yes. Sue Colorado. Sue them good. Sue them for millions. Make sure it hurts their pocketbook.

We may have to do MORE Lawsuits to accomplish anything more besides Legislative due to scarred politicians NOT wanting to take on new bills no matter SB or AB for lowering Tiers not adding more.

And…glad this RC’s have the opportunity there in CO. to do just that to wake up for non req Therapy.

Maybe NARSOL will step in ? Good Luck Colorado Registered Citizens to get better assistance to remove off the CO., Registery.

KUDOS to Fed Judge Nina Wang
for being fair due to the C Facilities NOT being fair nor follow their own requirements, when incarcerated in CA they do NOT, repeat N O T allow RC’s in State of CA Prison system to attend College, yet worse offenders are allowed and they had (M & F Instructors) for College Courses had the RED Motorola radios that ALARM & TX when sideways or distress for their Safety in classroom. Also C/O’s are outside of the door.

DENIED any degree or CE for RC’s in CA I should sue CDC-R for NOT allowing being not fair for RC’s to attend Comm. College while incarcerated PERIOD, nor Fire Crews even though FF I/II ?& III and EMT-1A. D E N I E D working for CDF prior. Not very resourceful for The State.

Same thing happened to me in PA.
I was denied parole first time around because they could not get me in a program soon enough. Not enough space in the treatment program.

Once I got in the program which was supposed to be for 18 months (high intensity-6 months treatment followed by 1 year aftercare).

Treatment met once a week. Aftercare met once a month.

When I transitioned into aftercare after 3 months the crammed the last 9 months into 2 months to get inmates thru the program and qualifying for parole to reduce the population. I passed treatment with flying colors according to the head shrink and he said I would not require treatment once released on parole. Made parole soon after completing the aftercare (rush thru).

Got out and back into society. Accessed by shrink and told I must take treatment. This shrink worked for the treatment provider I would be going to. First time in group I was told I would be in group until the day I maxed out my parole – no chance to graduate. Nice way to guarantee them $40 a week plus $275 for polys. What a waste of money and my time. All they did was badger us every minute of every session. If you did not agree with them on every single topic they would alert your parole officer.