Sexual cases like Sexual Assault on a Child (C.R.S. 18-3-405) and Sexual Assault (C.R.S. 18-3-402), are the most difficult for Probation success in Arapahoe, Douglas and El Paso County. Why? Because the government has a centralized program under the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) with onerous restrictions. There are hundreds of pages of content on the SOMB site which regulate sex offender behavior in every possible area. Each year, based on the experience of government workers, the list of prohibited behavior grows. As a result, petitions to revoke probation are common.
After a while, people on Sex Offender Intensive Supervised Probation (SOISP) in Denver, Jefferson and Adams County find that they cannot work anywhere, be anywhere, or live anywhere. Probation revocation is then common. Did you know that sex offenders are prohibited from going to the grocery store at certain hours, living in view of a park or near a green belt, and using cameras? Even cell phones with cameras are prohibited. Why? Because someone, somewhere, used a camera in a deviant manner. Did you know that some cities, like Englewood, Colorado, have tried to legislate sex offenders out of their community? There are so many restrictions on where sex offenders can live in Englewood, that it is almost impossible to live anywhere in that city.
Probation officers, police and city councilmen need to wake up and consider the hidden costs of harsh sex offender laws. Parents are kept from raising their kids in the name of child safety. Workers are forbidden to continue their jobs in the name of public safety. Even if there is no further danger, men and women are put in prison at a huge yearly cost because they've had sexual contact with a child. These laws and narrow-minded practices evidence the short sighted perspective of government. In many cases, I see government workers scared for their jobs and willing to impose bizarre restrictions on men and women in order to protect their careers. Even judges fall into this trap. Today, I appeared in front of a judge who would not allow a mother to be reunited with her 1 year old child (under supervision) due to a child abuse injury six months earlier. Despite the plea of social services and a guardian ad litem (meaning legal guardian) that the mother was safe to be around her child in this supervised setting, the judge would not modify the protection order. The worst part was that this judge could not give a reason for his position.Request a Free Consultation
There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.
Leave a Comment