Gov. Bill Ritter’s veto of a flawed sex offender management bill last week shows the former prosecutor at his best, wading into a complex criminal justice issue and exercising independence to make the right call.
We were glad to see the governor shoot down this bill with a strong analysis of its problems, and a blueprint for creating a substitute bill next session.
It was unfortunate that it had to come to a veto, but legislators had sent the governor an untenable bill, and we hope they realize the error of their ways.
House Bill 1364 was supposed to be a vehicle for extending the life of Colorado’s Sex Offender Management Board.
Instead, it made sweeping changes to the philosophical approach to handling sex offenders. It also was seriously compromised by a last-minute amendment offered by Sen. Joyce Foster that would allow sex offenders, in some circumstances, to choose their treatment provider.
As has been reported since then, Foster’s brother-in-law is a sex offender who was displeased with his treatment provider, a situation that Foster hid from the public and then lied about.
The people of Colorado deserve better from their lawmakers, and Ritter’s veto will allow legislators to take another shot at extending the life of the state’s Sex Offender Management Board. They must get it right this time.
The board oversees the supervision of sex offenders and the application of the state’s highly regarded containment model, whereby offenders who are not in custody are closely monitored.
In crafting the bill to extend the life of the board, legislators made some good tweaks to the system when they followed suggestions made in an analysis by the state Department of Regulatory Agencies, or DORA.
Ritter appropriately lauded these changes. They included requiring the Sex Offender Management Board to review the effectiveness of treatment programs.
And they would have taken the authority for investigating complaints against providers from the Sex Offender Management Board and have given that responsibility to DORA, introducing an independent set of eyes to the process.
These thoroughly researched changes were properly included in reauthorization legislation. If the bill had stuck to those sorts of updates, it would have been a successful piece of legislation.
That was not to be, and HB 1364 went off the rails in a couple of areas.
The Foster amendment was flawed in both policy and process. Ritter rightfully noted that the amendment allowing offenders at least three appropriate treatment options, where available, was introduced late in the process without opportunity for comment. He also criticized it because it “potentially degrades” the systemic management of offenders, and he is right about that, too.
Another troubling element about the now-vetoed bill was its removal of the “no known cure” language, which guided the management of offenders. The bill asked for an investigation into the current research on the topic and requested a report back.
We think that’s backward, and that language shouldn’t have been removed unless and until research showed an appropriate alternative approach. We expected to see Ritter criticize that part of the bill, but he did not.
Nevertheless, because of Ritter’s veto, Colorado has a chance to get this issue right. We look forward to seeing a better bill next year.
