s/o civ rights?

[jeremyr47]

Colorado State. If you have problems with litigation or issues of those with sex offenses please bypass this thread. I have been researching this for a friend since he got paroled and find it odd the way they have his supervision set up.

In Colorado, the Lifetime Supervision Act seems a bit weird (https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-18/article-1.3/part-10/). Though not found in the statute, one convicted of a sex offense is required to find and establish an identified support person to be with him in order to do things like going to a restaurant, a movie, a sporting event. It used to be they had to have one just to be able to parole, but as I understand it that criteria changed for him (low risk) yet remains for moderate to higher risks (see https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/somb/ADULT/OnLine2017AdultStandardsFINAL6.2.2017.pdf section 4.210 a/b). He will also require an identified and approved support person by his treatment provider (and therefore parole officer) in order to qualify for reduced supervision and eventual 'graduation' from the treatment program. There may be other things he's not able to do. For me to become an identified support person I would have to attend an educational class, agree to background checks (no worries), have to listen to his entire disclosure (not sure I'm okay with this) overseen by therapists and such, and be able to hold him accountable (I found that mentioned in a copied booklet about the SOTMP Support Education Program at https://lsainfo.wordpress.com/color...tion-program/sotmp-support-education-program/).

What I find odd is that they are requiring a civilian to monitor someone on supervision and can restrict his progress or movement just on that basis if he's not able to establish this civilian. I am surprised this has not been challenged, but considering the 'don't rock the boat' and don't question the system mentality he's been pushed to, it shouldn't surprise me. I believe there is a problem about compensation or authority if I am going to be tasked to 'babysit' my friend or maybe some discrimination if he is required to find a private citizen to agree to babysit him in order to progress through his supervision. It has my conservative hackles up I guess, but will consider attending the class for him. Though not happy about it.

Any thoughts would be great. Will be out for the rest of the weekend enjoying the weather. Back on Monday.

thx - jeremy

 

[HRZ]

IT would seem to me logical that one could be expected to be compensated for such services ?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

You are not being forced to do anything. But I'm not 100% sure you are reading what you posted correctly 4.210 you refer to seems to be talking about professional treatment providers.

It would be helpful with reguard to the law in your first link to list something more specific than the Part. There are 12 subparts.

 

[jeremyr47]

thanks for the quick reply! was about to leave for the mountains!

part 4.210 - pages 258 and 259 discuss the criteria for recommendation to parole that I was citing. The requirement for a support person remains in the moderate to high risk criteria, though it was dropped from the low risk which was how he qualified for parole.

Though compensation may be at the expense of the offender - I am curious as to how they are able to restrict progress in treatment (waiting to get a copy of the treatment contract) and the need to have a civilian monitor in the first place.

thx for your time and thoughts! I will continue to brainstorm as well.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Again I see nothing in either of the links mentioned that talk about a nonprofessional.

 

[not2cleverRed]

thanks for the quick reply! was about to leave for the mountains!

part 4.210 - pages 258 and 259 discuss the criteria for recommendation to parole that I was citing. The requirement for a support person remains in the moderate to high risk criteria, though it was dropped from the low risk which was how he qualified for parole.

Though compensation may be at the expense of the offender - I am curious as to how they are able to restrict progress in treatment (waiting to get a copy of the treatment contract) and the need to have a civilian monitor in the first place.

thx for your time and thoughts! I will continue to brainstorm as well.

You do realize that parole is an alternative to being locked up, right? Depending on the offense, and specific concerns regarding the individual, the requirements can vary.

It has my conservative hackles up that someone would consider taking up the role you describe, in spite of having reservations about listening to his entire disclosure. You preface your post with the qualifier that those with issues about sex offenses need not read any further. Maybe if you weren't convinced that blinders are better than full disclosure, you would more fully understand the reasoning behind the parole conditions.

Clearly those who know your "friend" better are concerned that he might still be a danger to society.

 

[stealth2]

What I find odd is that they are requiring a civilian to monitor someone on supervision and can restrict his progress or movement just on that basis if he's not able to establish this civilian.

And *I* find it odd that we should shrug off his convicted offense. If no one is available or willing to help fulfill the requirements of his parole? He can continue on with his sentence. Easy peasy.

 

[jeremyr47]

You are all absolutely right. I don't shrug off the offense nor the seriousness of the matter. His supervision appears to require a treatment provider, that provider is requiring him to find a private party to baby sit him, without compensation and to attend sessions and training at a hefty expense. Research also found that the director of the facility is also a board member of the state, which adds a question of conflict. The more I reviewed the matter the more I want nothing to do with it. I believe there is some overstep and even third party coercion going on. I am not vested enough to be involved however and declined any part. He can find someone else or go back to prison. Thank you for your time.

 

[not2cleverRed]

You are all absolutely right. I don't shrug off the offense nor the seriousness of the matter. His supervision appears to require a treatment provider, that provider is requiring him to find a private party to baby sit him, without compensation and to attend sessions and training at a hefty expense. Research also found that the director of the facility is also a board member of the state, which adds a question of conflict. The more I reviewed the matter the more I want nothing to do with it. I believe there is some overstep and even third party coercion going on. I am not vested enough to be involved however and declined any part. He can find someone else or go back to prison. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your update.

It is good to realize ones limitations.

I suspect that if you knew the full story/history, you would better understand the rationale behind some of the requirements.

I also suspect that you have an incomplete understanding of phrases such as "question of conflict" and "third party coercion", and suffice it to say that distancing yourself from this situation is a good idea for both you and your friend. You can be an emotionally supportive friend, but being his "keeper" would be in neither party's best interest.