DA Against Reform of Lifetime Act

DENVER -- Monday District Attorney Mitch Morrissey fired back at The Denver Post for printing a story that revealed the state's abuse of the indeterminate sentence.
Morrissey wrote, "Your article did a disservice to readers by implying that Colorado's indeterminate sentencing structure is flawed or broken." He goes on to explain that the point of the statute is to mandate treatment prior to release and then intensely supervise sex offenders after release. Morrissey strongly denies that the indeterminate sentence is in reality a life sentence.

Morrissey is a smart ambitious prosecutor in an obsessive law and order state. He is the one most often quoted in The Post affirming that Denver police don't break any laws when they beat or kill innocent citizens - usually minorities.

In this case, the reality of the situation does not match Morrissey's perception or the intent of the statute. The first 10 years of the indeterminate sentence saw only eight inmates released to intensive supervision, a rate of approximately 0.7 percent of those eligible. In the past two years the rate of parole has crept to 5 percent.* These numbers represent inmates who where only intended to serve minimal sentences; most nonviolent, some for victimless crimes. Yet 12 years later the sentence has more in common with a life sentence than the treat and release it was intended to be. There are currently over 600 inmates still incarcerated past their intended release date and over 1600 still backlogged indefinitely in a system unable to handle the zeal in policing and prosecution. When inmates go to the parole board they are told they have, ''a life sentence with a possibility of parole." On the notice of Colorado parole board action the sentence type is listed as ''LIFER.'' The parole board considers the indeterminate sentence a life sentence even if Morressey refuses to acknowledge the facts.

Morrissey goes on to argue, "a lack of resources is a separate issue that should not be confused with the sentencing model." In this instance Morrissey seems to be confused. When treatment is a legislative requirement of the sentence, required for release, and there is inadequate funding to support the law, then resources become a critical part of the sentencing model.

Lastly, Morrissey pulls the victim card that is used regularly by opponents of reforming the lifetime supervision act when he writes, "It is victims of sexual assault who carry a lifetime burden from the trauma of such a devastating criminal act."

No one can argue against this truth - a victim of sexual assault is traumatized and probably for life. This is a terrible and unfortunate reality. But this argument has no place in a discussion of the state's abuse of the lifetime supervision act it is comparing apples and oranges.

When an inmate is sentenced under The Lifetime Act he receives a bottom sentencing number; 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, 40 years, whatever the judge feels is appropriate punishment for the crime based on statutory guidelines. Once the inmate has served his bottom number the justice system considers the debt to society paid.

But this is not what Morressy believes. He believes, according to his letter to The Post, that inmates should continue to pay a price beyond their sentence. That somehow an inmate incarcerated longer than was legislatively intended, or life, is going to make the victim suffer less. However, an inmate in prison for 10 years on a 2-year sentence is not going to alleviate anymore victim suffering or provide anymore justice. It is not a zero-sum game, more incarceration does not equal less victim suffering, less incarceration does not increase victim suffering - they are two distinctly different issues with entirely different solutions. Apples and oranges.

Furthermore, what about the inmates convicted of a victimless crime, how much prison time do they deserve over their bottom number? How do you calculate the suffering of a victim that not exist?

If Morressey was concerned with victims he would be calling for the immediate release of all inmates that have served their intended prison sentence and completed treatment; and the transfer of savings from the reduced incarceration cost to a true victims' fund: a fund that provides long-term free treatment to victims of a sex crime.

Using the example from above, our inmate on his tenth year of a 2-year sentence would have saved the state $280,000 if he had been released on time. The saved incarceration cost would have provided $25,620 annually to treat the victim for 10 years and still covered the cost to monitor the inmate while on parole.**

This amount, given annually, would provide the victim some of the best long-term mental health treatment in the nation and actually help alleviate suffering - not compound the suffering as Morresseyls model of indefinite incarceration advocates.

As mentioned earlier, Morressey is a smart and ambitious man. When he writes from his office as a prosecutor he is not simply stating his opinion, he is stating the policy of the District Attorney's Office. Morrissey knows, like all other DAs and judges in the state, that The Lifetime Act has been turned into a life sentence, that the model is broken. He knows that the state's lack of funding has helped keep inmates from receiving the treatment promised by law and helped ensure their sentence is life.
Morressey knows that by reducing the actual prison term to the intended length the state budget could be cut by millions and victims could get some of the best treatment in the country. But this is not what Morressey and other prosecutors in the state want. They want the status quo - quick convictions that are driven by the threat of The Lifetime Act and long prison terms.

This is how prosecutors get elected and how they increase their yearly bonuses. But is it justice, does it increase or decrease the overall level of suffering in our society?

* Figures taken from the state Doc, DOC, DPS annual report.

** Victim treatment calculation: clears - the time held after intended sentence) X $35,000 (yearly cost to house and treat a sex offender) = $280,000 * 10 (years of long-term victim treatment) = $28,000 discounted by 8.5% (cost to monitor sex offender while on parole) = $25,620 annually to cover victims mental health needs.

Information from The Denver Post helped in writing this story. For more information see the denv|rpost.cop

Related News

The New York Time August 28, 2011

Sex Offenders: The Last Pariahs

By Roger N. Lancaster, professor of anthropology and director of the cultural studies program at George Mason University.

Lancaster's opinion piece takes an anthropological look at how recent sex offender laws have placed “Digital Scarlet Letters, electronic tethering, and practices of banishment have relegated a growing number of people to the logic of ‘social death’.”

The professor also goes a long way in debunking many of societies favored sex offender myths.

> Sex offenders have the highest recidivism rates - they are actually the lowest.

> The flawed fear induced policies of medal's law and the Adam Walsh Act - the laws are expensive to enforce and have no discernible impact on limiting or preventing sex offenses.

> That lurking anonymous predators are waiting at every park to abduct a child - in reality a child is more likely to be struck by lightning.

Lancaster does an excellent job of framing and providing insight into the societal costs of our Draconian practices. Well worth the read @ www.nytimes.com

August 31, 2011

The Denver Post

Sex-crime sentencing

Response to: District attorney’s response to sex-offender story, Aug 29 letter to the editor

Mitch Morrissey's letter misrepresents Colorado's sex-crime sentencing. In 2011, Colorado lawmakers repealed the inflammatory and fear-inducing “No known cure'' language mentioned by Mr. Morissey, and it is unsupported by current research. The mandatory life sentence applies to a broad spectrum of offenses, from the “worst of the worst,” to consensual over-the-cloths touching by high school students. Judges have no discretion to impose anything other than the life sentence, no matter the victim's wishes, defendant’s sexual victimization history, nor circumstances of the crime.

Prison ''treatment'' is one-size-fits-all, lasts years, and maintaining innocence or denying aspects of the police report keeps people out of the treatment mandated to get out of prison. Since the law's implementation in 1998, less than 1 percent of those sent to prison under this law have been paroled, while hundreds languish on the wait list for treatment.

Laurie Rose Kepros, Director of sexual offense defense for the Office pf the State Public Defender.