Greig Veeder, the man who runs a sex offender program called THE, has been drumming up a lot of hysteria this week, claiming that “public safety” is jeopardized by the bill that re-establishes the Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB).
One provision requires probation and parole officers to refer defendants to three appropriate treatment providers, all subject to the specific regulations of the SOMB, instead of only one.
Veeder markets his program as “tough,” and claims that all sex offenders are dangerous and manipulative and there is “no known cure” for them. He says this provision would let defendants “choose” ineffectual programs.
But Veeder’s story is flawed. He pretends there is a homogeneous thing called a “sex offender,” and they all look and act the same. Instead, the reality under Colorado law is that a “sex offender” is someone who urinated in public; an 18- year-old who touched his 14-year- old girlfriend’s buttocks over clothing with consent; a developmentally delayed person with boundary issues; someone who engaged in incest; and only in exceedingly rare cases is a pedophile or serial rapist. A “sex offender” can even be someone who has never been charged with or convicted of a sex offense but rather has been the target of an allegation.
Veeder pretends only his program can adequately monitor “manipulative sex offenders.” But there is no research to support Veeder’s methodology or validation for his program, although such tracking is a new requirement in this bill. Rather, with more than 150 other names vetted and approved by the SOMB, not one other provider besides Veeder has suggested that providing more than one appropriate option endangers the public in any way.
In criminal law, we routinely refer defendants to multiple approved programs for substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence treatment. It is a mythology of fear to suggest sex offenders must be treated differently. Research shows that good matching between defendants and treatment program works, and that it reduces crime and reoffense.
Currently, the supervising officer alone decides which program to refer, causing problems when officers play favorites or make referrals for their own convenience and not to best meet the defendant’s needs. While Veeder pretends this provider-choice solution is new, it has been a widely discussed problem with the SOMB system for years.
Veeder also pretends this provision stems from nefarious activity by state Sen. Joyce Foster, but ignores it was noted by the Department of Regulatory Agencies in an October 2009 report. This bill was contemplated by the legislature 10 years ago when the sunset provision was included.
Sen. Foster cited complaints about THE as motivating her to make this amendment, and Veeder’s supporters argued there would have been complaints to SOMB if his program was a problem. Yet, DORA criticized SOMB’s complaint process because defendants and their families feared retribution for making any type of complaint.
This bill moves complaint review from SOMB to DORA, which entertains anonymous complaints and has independence to allay fears of cronyism at SOMB.
Finally, the media should take responsibility for pretending to engage in journalism while simply parroting Veeder’s story despite his personal motivations and failing to conduct its own investigation. So now who’s manipulating who?
This bill is not about Foster or her relative. It is not about Veeder, either. This bill is about ensuring thousands of sex offenders get into appropriate programs so public safety is actually enhanced, instead of just pretending.
Laurie Rose Kepros is an attorney in the Arapahoe County Office of the State Public Defender.
