About Pat

Archive by Author

SB 105 – Collateral Consequences

By on February 3, 2012 in Home, Legislative Update

Collateral Consequences may be doing more harm than good.  It’s hard to say.  Our laws are littered with them, but we never step back to evaluate whether they serve a purpose, and the legislature seems determined to create new ones each year.

Collateral Consequences are sanctions or disqualifications against people with criminal records that arise from the operation of laws and regulations, but they were not part of the sentence handed down at the time of conviction.  We normally think crime is punished by incarceration, fines, restitution, probation or parole.  But in addition to what the criminal code assigns to various convictions, a multitude of civil laws pile on more punishment.  Examples of collateral consequences include loss of professional and occupational licenses, restrictions on public housing, ineligibility for public benefit programs, loss of voting rights, restrictions as to firearms, the inability to adopt children or become a foster parent, and more.  Colorado law is replete with these additional consequences for people with criminal records.

Add to the extensive list of collateral consequences the fact that many employers and landlords won’t consider people with criminal records, and you can easily see how the deck is stacked against someone coming out of the criminal justice system.  Studies have shown that the biggest indicators of success after prison are stable employment and housing.  Without these supports, people released from prison are likely to be part of our unfortunately high recidivism rate.  We know that employment and housing contribute to success on parole, yet Colorado law places collateral consequences in the path of former offenders as they seek jobs and places to live.  It doesn’t make sense.

SB 105 is a response to this contradiction in Colorado law.  The bill is similar to one I introduced last year (SB 11-044), but it is more clearly written and includes additional new features.  The bill I introduced last year was based upon a model act written by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.  This model act was recommended because states across the country are looking for ways to provide  relief from collateral consequences.

SB 105 has several distinct features, all designed to help people who have been in trouble with the law put their life back together and successfully reintegrate into society.  First, the bill requires people to be notified about the existence of collateral consequences at several key stages of the criminal justice process.  Before someone accepts a plea bargain they should know that their guilty plea may cost them their license to practice their profession or other important benefits.  I think due process and effective assistance of counsel require such notice, but I’ve written this into SB 105.

SB 105 next creates the opportunity for a judge to grant relief from collateral consequences for people being sentenced to probation or direct sentenced to community corrections.  In these cases, the offender will remain in the community, so they’ll need employment and housing.  Giving the sentencing court the power to waive collateral consequences will increase the likelihood of success on probation, or stated differently, make it less likely that probation will be revoked and the person will be sent to prison.

Next, SB 105 creates a process for similar relief from collateral consequences for people released from prison after a certain amount of time has passed.  If they’ve completed their time in prison and on parole and they’ve stayed out of trouble, they can petition a court for a certificate of rehabilitation that grants relief from specified collateral consequences.  Again, this allows someone to gain back their license to practice their profession or take other steps to move forward with their life.  And again, the goal is success after incarceration.

Finally, SB 105 creates processes for removing certain things from your record, such as old arrests that never resulted in the filing of charges or old convictions for petty offenses and municipal ordinance violations.  These things turn up in criminal background checks, but after the passage of time have little relevance to whether someone should get a job interview or be rented an apartment.  Old records like these shouldn’t haunt people for the rest of their lives, and SB 105 makes it possible to put these things in the past behind you.

I believe this approach to people with criminal records makes sense and will improve people’s lives and their ability to support their families.  Each collateral consequence will be individually considered by a judge, and only those cases where someone can show they deserve a second chance will win relief.  SB 105 is limited in its scope and doesn’t apply to sex offenders or other violent crimes, and it probably won’t work for everyone.  But it’s a step in a progressive direction and it offers hope and relief to those who often find little of these things in today’s society.  It should reduce recidivism and the costs to taxpayers and victims that come from criminal offenses.

SB 105 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Claire Levy, my colleague from the Joint Budget Committee.  Working on the budget committee gives us an unique perspective on the importance of reducing recidivism and helping people successfully reintegrate after prison.  Instead of being a drain on the state budget we’d prefer to see former offenders become productive members of society.  It’s time for our laws to create pathways to success rather than impose burdens that lead to failure.  SB 105 will help get us there.

To learn more about Collateral Consequences and how people can get along despite them, visit the website for the Institute for People with Criminal Records.  You can also follow developments in this area of law through The Sentencing Project.  Finally, an article published in the New York University Law Review provides a good explanation of the problems caused by Collateral Consequences and recommendations for reforms.

 

HB 1125 – Animal Impound Costs & Procedures

By on January 31, 2012 in Home, Legislative Update

Last year I worked with the Denver Dumb Friends League and other animal shelters to pass SB 11-009.  The bill was unanimously approved in the Senate but died an unfortunate death in a House committee (sound familiar?).  We’re back this year with a new strategy and different House sponsors, and hopefully we’ll succeed in passing the bill in 2012.

HB 1125 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Robert Ramirez, and the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, is a co-sponsor.  There are a few improvements over last year’s bill, but it is essentially the same as SB 9.  The issue is not without controversy, but it has the strong support of animal welfare groups.

HB 1125 seeks to clarify court procedures when a pet animal has been impounded due to cruelty or neglect.  While the owner is awaiting trial for animal cruelty the animal is placed in the care of a shelter.  Under current law, the procedures for owners to pay for the cost of care are not clear and tend to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, especially if the owner wants to contest whether there was probable cause to impound the animal or challenge the proposed costs of care.  Timelines for these procedures don’t favor speedy resolutions of disputes.

HB 1125 sets out the procedure for when and how an owner may challenge the impound and its costs.  This is important because in cases where the owner does not pay the costs, the animal shelter may dispose of the animal through adoption after a certain point in time.  If the owner wants their animal back if they are found not guilty of a crime, they need to take certain steps to make sure this happens.  If they are found guilty the court may order forfeiture of the animal so it is not returned to an abusive owner.

While HB 1125 is essentially a bill that clarifies procedures, it touches on some very interesting legal issues.  Giving the accused owner an opportunity for due process is important.  Making sure the cost of caring for animals are paid during a trial is also important and will help shelters take in animals that have been vicitims of cruelty or neglect.  Returning animals to the innocent and protecting them from abusers is the goal of HB 1125, and I’m hopeful we can get it passed this year.

 

 

Criminal Justice Reform

By on January 29, 2012 in Home

I am a strong supporter of efforts to make Colorado law “smart on crime” by the use of evidence-based strategies to promote public safety and reduce recidivism.  I am a member of the Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice’s Drug Policy Task Force and have been actively working to advance reforms to our drug laws that reduce demand by treating individuals struggling with addiction with compassion and providing them the help they need.  For many drug offenders community-based drug treatment is far more effective than a prison cell.  It costs less and reduces recidivism, saving money and lives.

In 2010 I was one of the sponsors of HB 10-1352, which reduced sentences for possession offenses.  By downgrading possession of small, personal-use amounts of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor we saved millions of dollars in the prison budget.  And we applied those savings to providing drug treatment.  Numerous studies have proven the wisdom of this strategy, and now Colorado is moving in this reform direction.

This week I will be introducing a bill in the Senate that furthers the goals of HB 1352.  This bill is also the work of the Drug Policy Task Force and has been endorsed by the CCJJ.  It streamlines the flow of drug treatment funds to local communities and consolidates three different funding sources for these services.  The bill will also require better accounting and data collection for these services, which will build the case for continuing to invest more in prevention and treatment.

Also this week, I will introducing a bill that also aims to reduce recidivism by providing relief from “collateral consequences.”  People convicted of crimes often find that their punishment doesn’t end when they are released from prison and parole.  We talk about “paying a debt to society,” but that debt goes beyond doing time.  Criminal convictions haunt a person for the rest of their life, making it hard to find housing and employment.  Various state laws impose additional restrictions on former felons.  The deck is stacked against them as they try to reintegrate into society and become productive, contributing members of the community.

Collateral consequences of criminal convictions include the loss of professional occupational licenses, restrictions on access to public housing and public benefit programs, even the loss of the right to adopt a child, vote or own a gun.  Some of these restrictions exist for good reason, but some were enacted under the banner of being “tough on crime” with little or no evidence that public safety is enhanced.  In fact, a leading cause of recidivism is the inability to secure employment or housing.  Collateral consequences often set someone up for failure.  This means more crime, more victims and the need for more prisons.  I’d like less of all those things, please.

There is a solution to this problem.  It takes an individual approach and allows people to request that a court remove certain barriers from their path.  For persons sentenced to probation or community corrections, the bill I am proposing would allow the sentencing court to enter orders to waive collateral consequences so someone can keep their job or housing.  This increases the likelihood they will succeed and not have their probation revoked.  For those being released on parole, the bill creates a process for petitioning the court for this same type of individualized relief, again with the aim of helping someone succeed and not wind up back in the system.

Recidivism is a problem in Colorado.  The “revolving doors” at the entrance to prison return over half of those released back into the system within two years of their release.  Addiction and mental illness are contributing factors to criminal behavior, but prison is expensive and not always the best solution to someone’s problem.  Our criminal justice system should be designed to promote public safety, but punishment often gets emphasized over prevention.  Whether it’s providing drug treatment for those with addictions or help for people returning to the community so they can reintegrate and find a place to live and work, we’ve got a lot of work to do in Colorado.  I’ve enjoyed working on these issues and hope we can maintain the forward momentum in the 2012 session.

 

HB 1081 – Auraria Higher Education Center

By on January 26, 2012 in Legislative Update

Until the newly reapportioned boundaries of Senate District 31 take effect, the Auraria campus – officially known as the Auraria Higher Education Center or “AHEC” – is located in my district.  Last year I worked with Rep. Crisanta Duran on a bill to help keep Auraria students participating on certain advisory boards for the campus.  AHEC is also located within the boundaries of her House District 5.  This year we’re again carrying legislation to help the campus run smoothly.

HB 1081 corrects certain oversights in a bill from 2010 that granted “flexibility” to public institutions of higher education in Colorado.  This flexibility legislation was specifically intended to allow colleges and universities deal with declining state funding, an unfortunate budgetary circumstance that continues to get worse.  Colorado is now one of the lowest states in the country for funding higher education.  Tuition and fees have gone up while state funding has steadily declined.  “Flexibility” to ease certain mandates and procedures has helped our colleges and universities cope and keeps fee increases from going even higher.

When the 2010 legislation was written, AHEC was inadvertantly left out.  AHEC serves three institutions on one campus: the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver and the University of Colorado at Denver.  Each of these individual institutions was given “flexibility” to help keep costs down, but on the Auraria campus, many of the services where they could avoid state mandates, such as procurement, are handled jointly for all three institutions by AHEC.  But AHEC wasn’t given the same flexibility.  HB 1081 treats AHEC fairly and gives it the ability to manage the campus with the same flexibility each institution was individually granted.  Seems simple, but it takes a lengthy bill to correct the omission.

 

 

HB 1089 – ballot questions

By on January 23, 2012 in Legislative Update

Rep. Lois Court is a huge fan of ballot initiative reforms, and I’m right there with her on this topic.  This year we’re sponsoring HB 1089 to continue to de-mystify the initiative process for Colorado voters.  It’s a simple bill that will help make clear the choices people have when casting their ballot for or against initiatives.

For or against is the key.  HB 1089 will add these words to the ballot to make clear that voting YES is for changing the law and voting NO is against changing the law.  The ballot will be labeled “Yes/For” and “No/Against.”

Seem simple?  You’d be surprised how many people say this confuses them.

To make it even more clear, the ballot question itself will describe the measure as “a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes” or “an amendment to the Colorado Constitution.”  Again, a little more clarity in this area can’t hurt.  A couple of years ago Rep. Court sponsored a bill that changed the terminology we use for ballot initiatives to call statutory measures “propositions” and constitutional changes “amendments.”  This little addition to the ballot question language makes it even easier to understand.