CO - Should we stop labeling people 'sex offenders?'

Original Article (Video available)

01/17/2015

By Melissa Blasius

KUSA - A state regulatory board debated Friday whether the label "sex offender" was too stigmatizing to people who committed sex crimes.

Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board regulates treatment, rehabilitation, and monitoring of sex offenders. Friday's board meeting included a vote whether to eliminate the word "sex offender" from the board's official policies. Suggestions for replacement words included "clients," "defendants" and "individuals."

Ultimately, the board chose to continuing using the term "sex offender," but member also agreed to use other terms interchangeably as they revised written regulations. The decision came after more than an hour of debate, including comments from relatives of sex offenders, victim advocates and a local prosecutor.

"People who have committed a sexual offense will have a much better chance of revising their lives and moving in a different direction if they don't have the stigma of sex offender hanging over their heads," said Susan Walker. She is the director of an advocacy group called Coalition for Sex Offense Restoration.

Read the entire article here

CA - Do Residency Bans Drive Sex Offenders Underground?

Original Article

07/07/2014

By Steven Yoder

Early last year, Los Angeles set aside a sliver of land in its Harbor Gateway neighborhood for the city’s newest and smallest park: two jungle gyms on a fifth of an acre.

The project was more than just an effort to increase the city’s green space. City Council members made clear that one of the park’s principal reasons for existence was to force 33 people on the California sex offender registry who were living in a nearby apartment building to move out. State law bars those on its registry from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school.

“We came together, working with the police department, to problem-solve, to send a message that Harbor Gateway cannot be dumped upon with a high number of registered sex offenders,” councilman Joe Buscaino said (Video) at the park’s opening.
- Just imaging how much money would be wasted if all grandstanding politician were to put pocket parks all over the state just so they can "look tough" on ex-sex offenders?  That is all this is, grandstanding!

But the state ban itself already clusters registrants into a limited number of areas, according to a September 2011 report by the California Sex Offender Management Board, which was created by the state legislature to advise it on sex offender policies.

California hasn’t been alone in its tough approach to ensuring that formerly incarcerated sex offenders pose no danger after they are released. As part of a wave of new sex offender laws starting in the mid-1990s, about 30 states and thousands of cities and towns passed such residency restrictions—prompting in turn a pushback from civil liberties advocates, state legislators and registrants themselves who argued the restrictions were not only unduly harsh but counterproductive.

But a court decision in Colorado last year could mark a shift in momentum.

In the Colorado case, _____, a high school soccer coach convicted in 2001 for a consensual sexual relationship with a 17-year-old student, was sentenced to seven years’ probation and put on the state sex offender registry.

Eleven years later, in 2012, he and his wife bought a house in the city of Englewood. But the police department told him he couldn’t live there because of a city ordinance prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds—a law that effectively made 99 percent of its homes and rentals off limits to offenders.

Englewood police also warned offenders that even in the open one percent, if they contacted a homeowner whose property wasn’t for rent or for sale, they could be charged with trespassing.

_____ sued, and last August a federal court concluded that the city’s ban went too far.

The judge ruled that it conflicted with the state’s existing system for managing and reintegrating sex offenders and could encourage other towns and cities to do the same, effectively barring offenders from the entire state. Englewood has appealed, but two of the state’s five other cities that have residence bans have softened their restrictions since the decision.

The other three are awaiting the outcome of the appeal, according to John Krieger of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado, which represented Ryals.

Read the rest of the article

CO - Audit criticizes Colorado's program for monitoring sex offenders

Original Article

01/28/2014

By David Olinger

Colorado is overtreating many low-risk sex offenders in the mistaken belief that they cannot be cured, an independent consultant has found.

As a result, the state's Sex Offender Management Board is wasting significant amounts of public money on supervision in the community, according to a report from Central Coast Clinical and Forensic Psychology Services.

The report, released earlier this month, also concluded that Colorado's system for classifying some offenders as sexually violent predators is hopelessly flawed and in urgent need of replacement. That means Colorado could be classifying the wrong people as sexually violent predators.

The findings were met with approval from advocates of reform for sex-offender treatment but with skepticism from a victims' group.

The report's recommendations, if adopted, could dramatically change the supervision of sex offenders, many of whom are now monitored for life.

There were 1,412 sex offenders under intensive supervision on probation in the state as of June 30, and 767 of those were under lifetime supervision, according to the Colorado Department of Corrections.

The consultant's analysis of the board, an arm of the state Department of Public Safety, commended Colorado for developing a model treatment program in the 1990s and for the thought and dedication put into its guidelines for managing sex offenders.

At the same time, it reported that Colorado has adhered stubbornly to the idea that sex offenders cannot be cured and must be managed for life despite abundant research to the contrary.

The board's guidelines "communicate a view of sex offenders' risk," the report said, that they have "a disorder which cannot be cured," that all sex offenders pose a "dangerously high risk," and that "the danger can only be managed by constant vigilance." As a result, "expending special and expensive resources on managing low-risk offenders wastes public money," the report said.

Its criticisms echo a scathing report from the same consultant last year that sex-offender programs in Colorado prisons have created a treatment backlog that leaves some inmates waiting for years for therapy.

"I thought it was fantastic. We're thrilled," said Susan Walker, director of the Coalition for Sexual Offense Restoration.

"Finally, somebody besides us is saying that under the no-cure philosophy, the (sex-offender management board) has not been functioning under appropriate standards and guidelines."

Erin Jemison, executive director of the Colorado Coalition Against Sex Assault, participated in the consultant's round of focus groups and found it unbalanced.

"While there were some good suggestions that the board needs to look at," Jemison said, "I think they did not include victim and victim- advocate voices to the same extent that they included offender voices. I think that's reflected in the report."

The report cited multiple problems with the risk scale that Colorado uses to identify sexually violent predators and concluded the state has "no credible data" to justify its use.

"There is an urgent need," the report said, to replace its method for calling someone a predator "with an instrument that is soundly developed."

The report also criticized treatment programs for relying too much on polygraph examinations as a means of measuring an offender's success.

Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, the program manager for the board, said it has been working already on some of the changes recommended in the report.

See Also:

• Colorado sex offender says parole officer made threat after testimony

CO - Woman (Katherine Bennett) who falsely accused Windsor man of kidnapping, sex assault appears in Weld court

Katherine Bennett

Original Article

01/22/2014

The court case involving a woman who last year falsely accused a Windsor man of luring her to the Safeway parking lot along Main Street, kidnapping her at knife point and sexually assaulting her, will last for at least another two months.

A judge on Wednesday granted Katherine Bennett, 20, a two-month continuance so her attorney can further evaluate the evidence in the case, including a number of unspecified medical records.

The judge also allowed Bennett, who appeared on bond, to return to Illinois so she can be with her family and continue an undisclosed form of therapy.

Bennett, flanked by family and her attorney, declined to comment about the case outside of the courtroom.

Fort Collins authorities arrested Bennett on Dec. 10 regarding a Windsor police warrant. The woman told officers that _____ had kidnapped her from the Windsor Safeway parking lot in November, held her at knife point, took her to his home and raped her before agreeing to let her go the following morning.

Those allegations were proven untrue, according to an arrest affidavit. As a result of the false statements, _____ was arrested and jailed and has suffered great personal hardship and embarrassment, police said.

_____, who has been cleared of any wrongdoing, previously said he planned on suing Bennett and added that he lost his job at OtterBox in Fort Collins as a result of the allegations.

Bennett previously asked for her $20,000 bond to be reduced and said she had no prior criminal history or even a speeding ticket. A judge denied that request and she has since paid the bond.

Bennett is charged with attempting to influence a public servant. She remains free on bond, and her next court appearance is scheduled for March 28.

CO - Denver Post article, shows eight amendment violation, for lack of treatment

Original Article

11/05/2013

By Will Bassler

An article in the Denver Post on November 3, 2013 was titled “Unintended effect of 1998 Colorado law: More sex offenders in for life”. This article brought to light that Colorado has not been offering treatment, as is required by law to people who have been sentenced for crimes. These people can only be released after receiving effective treatment and the state is not offering that treatment supposedly because of facilities and financial issues.

I responded back to the writer of the article, in hopes that he would do a follow-up article showing that the state of Colorado is not only acting irresponsibly but they are also opening themselves up to multimillion dollar lawsuits based on prior federal court decisions.

In reading your recent story in the Denver Post “Unintended effect of 1998 Colorado law” I thought about posting a response in the comments section , but realized my response would be way too long, especially considering I would be using direct quotes from a federal case stating that the state of Colorado cannot use the excuse of the necessity of funds, facilities or staff to justify lack of treatment. Also, the fact that in the same case the federal court has stated that just because someone commits a crime you cannot declare them mentally ill and require them to be in treatment.

The second part of this is the fact that there is a constitutional issue here that most people don’t want to deal with. Because of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this country you’re allowed to dislike, even outright hate, a person or group that is all well and good. You have that right under the Constitution, what you do not have is the right force your ideas or Moral values, on other individuals. Just because of your dislike or fear of a group of people this does not give you the right to take away their constitutional protections. As soon as you start doing that you are destroying the very fabric that this country was built on and you become as un-American as somebody in another country burning an American flag or flying a plane into the World Trade Center. Think about it, if you want to retain your constitutional rights you have to fight to make sure that everyone keeps theirs, even the people that you dislike or hate.

Consider this information from federal cases.

Read the rest of the article

Former Detention Center Counselor Sentenced For Sexual Assault

View the article here

Why not the maximum like the average Joe would get?

04/24/2007

GOLDEN - A former counselor at a juvenile detention center here was ordered to serve three years in prison for sexually assaulting a child, authorities said.

Heather Rose Robbins, 30, of Englewood, Colo., learned her sentence Monday in a Jefferson County courtroom. She had pleaded guilty Jan. 29 to sexual assault on a child and unlawful sex in a penal institution, both felonies.

The 16-year-old male victim reported to police that there were five or six sexual encounters between May 2004 and August 2005. The teen said he and Robbins also communicated by telephone and letters on her days off.
- So that would've made this kid to be 13 or 14 years old at the time.

Police said Robbins' job as a security officer also included counseling supervision and security operations.

The victim also said he and Robbins communicated in letters and by telephone on her days off from the center.

Robbins' prison sentence was to be followed by 10 years to life on intensive supervised probation, Russell said.
- She should be on the sex offender registry for LIFE like everyone else!!

Don't banish offenders

View the article here

04/22/2007 Aurora flirts with misguided policy

Aurora may join Greenwood Village and become the second Colorado city that prohibits certain registered sex offenders from living near places children frequent.

In Aurora's case, the ordinance would target violent offenders and those who have attacked children. The forbidden zone would be anywhere within the city limits that's 1,000 feet or closer to a school or recreation center.

The Lyons town board wisely rejected a similar measure not long ago. We hope the Aurora ordinance, which is scheduled to be heard by the city's public safety committee Tuesday, suffers a similar fate.

Any attempt to banish former sex offenders from large portions of a city or town is counterproductive and would probably drive them underground, where they'll be even more of a threat. Such measures are also quite possibly unconstitutional.

The public is concerned that the corrections system is releasing potentially violent predators into the community with scant supervision. The reality is more complicated. Colorado has supervision guidelines in place to monitor sex offenders who have completed their sentences and are on parole. These regulations go far beyond the requirement to register with local law enforcement every time they move.

In fact, most felony sex offenders who have been sentenced since 1998 face some form of lifetime monitoring. Before an incarcerated offender who faces lifetime supervision is approved for parole, the inmate is expected to attend counseling and demonstrate improvement, make arrangements to find housing and a job, and agree to continue treatment after leaving jail. If they can regain something that resembles a normal life in their community, they'll be less likely to harm others again.

Measures that try to banish sex offenders can put them beyond the reach of family members, community and religious organizations and other support systems - as well as jobs and decent housing.

When Miami Beach established a 2,500-foot buffer zone in 2005, the only place that state corrections officials would allow sex offenders to live within the city limits was under a bridge that's beside the Intracoastal Waterway.

Last October, a federal judge suspended an ordinance in Indianapolis which prohibited sex offenders who committed crimes against children from coming within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds. To be sure, that's stricter than the proposed Aurora ordinance, which would regulate only where sex offenders live, not where they work . . . or walk. Still, the basic principle is the same.

The legislature has turned back attempts each of the past three years to impose a buffer zone statewide. We urge council members in Aurora, and elected local officials elsewhere, to show similar restraint.

Colorado City polygamist sentenced to probation for marrying teen

View the article here

04/22/2007

KINGMAN - A member of a polygamist sect who pleaded no contest to a child abuse charge for taking an underage wife was sentenced to one day in jail and 3 years probation.

Colorado City resident Vergel Jessop will also have to register as a sex offender during his probation. The judge in Mohave County spared him additional jail time Friday because his wife has significant medical problems, county prosecutors said.

Jessop, 47, had been charged in August 2005 with sexual conduct with a minor and conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor. He pleaded no contest to the lesser charge in December.

Jessop's sentencing was the sixth of eight cases involving members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be concluded. All eight were charged with crimes related to their underaged plural wives.

Dale Barlow is set to be sentenced in June for his no contest plea to conspiracy to commit sexual conduct with a minor. The last defendant, Rodney Holm, is set for trial in May.

Of the remaining members of the polygamous sect originally charged, one was acquitted, charges were dropped against two men, and two others were convicted at trial or pleaded guilty.

The leader of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, is being held in Utah on two counts of rape by accomplice and faces life terms in prison if convicted. In Arizona, he faces sexual misconduct charges which carry lesser penalties.

Both states brought the charges in connection with marriages Jeffs allegedly arranged between older men and teenage girls.

The FLDS is based in Colorado City and nearby Hildale, Utah.