A movement in America in recent years has taken hold of once common-sense policymaking at the federal level, and it’s now infected the Colorado Legislature. There used to be topics political parties on each side of the aisle would agree had sensible solutions. An issue such as ensuring safe communities for our citizens didn’t seem like such a controversial topic to the legislators before us.

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen in our Colorado Legislature recently sows doubt that we can still agree on rational policies that protect our people, especially our children. Keeping our communities safe by cracking down on criminals has been replaced with sympathy and coddling of the perpetrators with hope they’ll be magically cured and with little consideration for the victims. Nothing made this clearer than what happened last week in one of our public committee hearings. We learned that advocating for children’s safety in the criminal code is an issue viewed remarkably differently between Republicans and Democrats.

Last Tuesday, the House Judiciary committee heard HB23-1135: Penalty for Indecent Exposure in View of Minors. The introduced bill is intended to update the criminal code in relation to when indecent exposure to a minor is considered a felony. Under current law, a person must commit this offense at least two times before the act can be considered a felony-level offense.

Before I go further, let’s be clear on this offense. It is important to clearly define the difference between indecent exposure and public indecency. Public indecency is different in that simply exposing oneself is enough to trigger this offense; indecent exposure requires the perpetrator to expose themself with the intent to arouse or satisfy their own sexual desire. This bill is simply saying that a single occurrence of this offense should be enough to justify a felony-level prosecution. The bill would bring the relevant statute in parity with the same offense in a different context, such as a person exposing themself to a minor via the internet.

For the average citizen, this would seemingly be a common-sense change to statute that would clearly show Colorado does not tolerate the sexual exploitation of children; period.

What we saw in committee was a heated debate among Democrats weighing the burden of prison time for individuals found guilty of indecent exposure versus justice for a sexually exploited child. Multiple members on the Judiciary Committee spent considerable time, through debate and amendments, making the argument that prison time for the convicted individual is a greater burden than the harm inflicted on the child that was forced to watch an adult sexually gratify themself.

Rep. Elizabeth Epps, D-denver, started her rebuttal to the Democrat-sponsored legislation by saying this bill is “not a step in the right direction,” and went so far as to say that “there is nowhere, maybe a war zone, more sexually violent than a cage” — in reference to a prison cell. Most notably, Epps’ thought was capped off with stating that putting someone in prison for indecent exposure “doesn’t keep the person who asked for a misdemeanor or felony safe,” perpetuating that the criminals are now the victims.

To clarify, “the person who asked for a misdemeanor or felony” could have been more accurately stated as the child victim. Additionally, I would contend that the sexual exploitation of a child who does not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend the act is considerably more violent, and the child is more worth defending, than focusing on how comfortable a person convicted of indecent exposure feels in a prison cell. I would also contend that the parents of a sexually exploited child would agree with my sentiment without debate.

This debate between Democrats on the Judiciary Committee brings light to a common theme of frustration among Republicans; the frustration being that this Legislature has consistently passed policies focused more on easing the burdens felt by criminal perpetrators in the name of mental health, rather than passing policies that definitively advocate on behalf of victims. The discussion around HB23-1135 showed that Democrats see no bounds when weighing the rights or benefits of convicted criminals versus creating clearly defined pathways to justice for victims if that pathway to justice potentially results in prison; even when the victim in question is a sexually exploited child.

We often hear arguments that compassion and forgiveness through social support systems are more effective in reintegrating convicted criminals into society than time spent in a prison cell. Compassion and forgiveness certainly have their place in a well-functioning society, but my Republican colleagues and I firmly believe compassion and forgiveness should never come at the expense of the most vulnerable victims. Unfortunately, Democrats pushed a bill intended to provide justice for sexually exploited children through committee without clearly defining unequivocal support for victims of this crime.