Source: coloradopolitics.com 3/12/24
Senate Judiciary members heard testimony on a bill that would eliminate indeterminate prison sentences for certain convicted sex offenders and allow them to receive treatment in the community rather than in prisons, but did not vote on the measure at the request of the bill’s sponsor.
In addition to removing some indeterminate sentences, Senate Bill 118 would impose mandatory minimums for individuals convicted of sex crimes, mandating that they serve 75% of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. The bill would allow offenders deemed “low-risk” to complete sex offender treatment within the community instead of prison.
According to the bill’s sponsor Sen. Julie Gonzales, D-Denver, the waitlist for convicted sex offenders to access treatment within the state’s prisons has grown exponentially in recent years. Currently, the Department of Corrections (DOC) can move inmates down on the list without any repercussions, leaving some offenders waiting for treatment long after parole eligibility has come and gone.
The bill modifies the legislative declaration in the Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998, also known as SOLSA or LSA, which requires lifetime supervision for most class two, three and four felony sex offenses. The revised language emphasizes that there is no evidence that life sentences for sex crimes have resulted in increased public safety. It also includes a statement that research indicates community-based treatment programs are the most effective approach to addressing the public safety risk presented by sex offenders.
Well that’s great news. In spite of the fact they won’t vote on it (republican backlash anybody?) But I’ve heard a little bit about the way we’re treated in prison in Colorado. One thing I remember was somebody was disciplined in prison just for having a picture of somebody’s kid in their bunk. A completely benign one. Something that no sane person could possibly be aroused by. And the guards just assumed he would’ve been turned on by that. The level of projection there is just out of control.
I have never seen so much ignorance packed into one single article regarding a legislative bill.
First, acknowledging that life sentences do not increase safety contradicts requiring registration (part of the criminal sentence, correct?) for life.
Second, to claim “treatment” programs are so successful ignores the fact that, despite popular opinion, nearly sex criminals are not inclined to repeat their crimes in the first place, shown by the extremely low recidivism rate (also contrary to popular opinion).
Third, the claim that victims are somehow degraded by anything that eases a registrant’s burden is getting very tired – being a sex crime victim does not entitle one to a lifetime of coddling or give their thoughts, feelings, and opinions any more weight than anyone else.
Fourth, the claim that “offenders are a high risk to their victims” is completely absurd. I doubt the legislator that made that claim could find three instances of a sex crime recidivist accosting the same victim after conviction.
And finally, this: “I’m frustrated by the knowledge that we as a body, as a General Assembly, have known about the challenges that we have faced as a state. We’ve known about the ballooning costs of incarcerating offenders endlessly with no discernable path to treatment while victims languish,” she (bill sponsor) said. “The fact that there are over 300 individuals who leave the DOC having received no treatment is devastating to me. What are we doing?”
It’s called pandering by previous legislators, Ms. Gonzalez. Try complaining to your predecessors of the mess they created. They shouldn’t be hard to find – odds are most of them are now registered lobbyists to your very assembly.
This “looking out for the victims ” phrase really gets tiring after a while. Politicians should be arguing on the merits of their policies, instead of emotional appeals to the media and uninformed.