« New NY Times editorial on felon disenfranchisement | Main | U Penn JCL symposium on Eighth Amendment litigation »

August 5, 2009

"DOC May Have To Pay For Sex Offenders To Stay In Motels"

The title of this post is the headline of this local story from Colorado that highlights the challenges facing sex offenders — and facing those responsible for managing and monitoring sex offenders — after release from prison.  Here is how the piece starts:

The Department of Corrections and the Denver Police Department told 7NEWS they were scrambling to find alternative housing for roughly 100 registered sex offenders who currently stay at Crossroads, an overnight men's shelter run by the Salvation Army.

Last week, the Salvation Army announced they would be closing the shelter by mid-August. The city and law enforcement urged them to keep it open until Aug. 31.  Sex offenders told 7NEWS that housing isn't easy to come by because of the stigma associated with the crime. They said they can't find a job and can't find a place to live.

Law enforcement officers said they understand, which is why they believe Crossroads worked so well for these men.  In many cases, the DOC even paid the $35 a week required for a bed. DOC spokesman Tim Hand said the Dept. of Corrections had to find and provide a transitional housing situation for men who couldn't afford it and Crossroads made it easier for them to monitor the offenders in their system.

Now, the DOC will be forced to go to the families of sex offenders and ask them to take these men in. If that doesn't work they will be forced to put them in motels.  Hand said the Dept. of Corrections will have to look at their budget because the money comes out of their general fund and they were not prepared for Crossroads' closing.

August 5, 2009 at 09:10 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "DOC May Have To Pay For Sex Offenders To Stay In Motels":


Instead of batshit crazy registration laws, why not just make the sentences longer?

Posted by: . | Aug 5, 2009 9:19:32 AM

I'm not saying that's a good policy, just that, from the point of view of tough on crime legislators, it doesn't seem that difficult for them to do.

Posted by: . | Aug 5, 2009 9:58:41 AM

Trouble is, only pay-by-the-hour motels are likely to satisfy their residency limitations...

Posted by: Res ipsa | Aug 5, 2009 6:40:22 PM

This is hilarious because it proves fear and hysteria result in mental retardation.

For example, . says: Instead of batshit crazy registration laws, why not just make the sentences longer?

However, . does not understand that taxes pay to keep offenders in prison and there is a good chance that . tends to whine and complain about his/her taxes being so high and the biggest sex offender, a politician (who whores for votes) makes promises to lower taxes if elected and when elected this sex offender lowers taxes and with less taxes, prisoners are released.

However, unable to find a job or a place to stay, the state has to care for the former prisoner to make the maggot population "feel" safe, of course it is at taxpayer expense because if a sex offender is unemployed, how can they pay for the GPS and other crap?

Posted by: The Emperor | Sep 17, 2009 2:03:41 AM

Soceity makes it hard for some sex offenders. All sex offender are not predators and rapist. There is poor stigma assciated with the word "sex offender" and until the state recognizes this the sex register will continually grow and many offenders leaving prison will be left outside in the cold and eventually those that are high risk offenders will commit more offenses. I've never understood why every sex offense is grouped in the same category. There is a difference between a molestor and someone who has consenual sex. People need to wake up!

Posted by: Bab | Nov 13, 2009 8:50:26 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB