Buyers walk free, survivors carry the scars: Colorado debates sentencing for child traffickers

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado lawmakers confronted a question this week that has lingered for years under the gold dome: how far should the state go in punishing those who buy and traffic children?

Two bills offered two different answers.

Senate Bill 26-015 cleared Senate Judiciary on a 6–1 vote and was referred, as amended, to Appropriations. Senator Nick Hinrichsen cast the lone “no.”

HB26-1082 went the other direction. Representative Scott Bottoms’ bill would have required life without parole in certain cases involving trafficked minors. It stalled in the House Judiciary Committee.

No one in the room disputed the harm. That wasn’t the fight. The debate centered on sentencing, and whether judges should still have room to decide.

This wasn’t new territory for lawmakers. In 2024, HB24-1092 attempted to set fixed mandatory minimums for sexual exploitation of children. It was voted down in committee, 8–3, and postponed indefinitely.

SB26-015: Raising the Floor on Sentencing

After that defeat, sponsors regrouped. SB26-015 was drafted to work within Colorado’s existing sentencing grid instead of replacing it outright.

Sens. Byron Pelton and Dylan Roberts and Reps. Jarvis Caldwell and Monica Duran, the bill’s prime sponsors, described it as a focused fix — not a rewrite of the sentencing code.

SB26-015 keeps Colorado’s framework in place but changes some key provisions. It replaces the term “child prostitution” with “commercial sexual activity with a child,” requires judges to impose at least the minimum presumptive sentence, and makes clear that arranging or soliciting a meeting for that purpose is a crime.

Detective Kate Morsey with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office told lawmakers, “Right now in Colorado, purchasing a child for commercial sexual activity is probation eligible.” She said SB26-015 “closes that gap by modernizing outdated terminology, increasing penalties, and requiring mandatory minimum sentences of at least four years for these Class III felony offenses.” 

Senator Byron Pelton made a similar point during the action meeting, saying, “Right now that baseline is probation.” 

When testimony began during the first Senate Judiciary hearing on SB26-015, survivors focused on what they said the current system allows.

Amanda Jordan testified, “It is rape. It is rape. It is the repeated sexual assault of a child for profit.” She added, “Buyers are not passive participants. They are the engine that makes trafficking possible.” Jordan warned that “Probation and short sentences send a dangerous message that purchasing a child for sex is negotiable. It is not. It is rape.” She told lawmakers, “Strong sentencing is not about punishment alone. It is about deterrence, accountability, and making it unmistakably clear that children are not commodities.”

Another survivor testified, “Probation and fines are not a deterrent,” and said, “They go on with their lives, while victims live with the damage for the rest of their lives.”

That concern about buyers returning to their lives while victims carry lifelong trauma was echoed in testimony about court outcomes. One court observer told lawmakers, “Every single one of those men were offered a plea deal.” She continued, “There was no meaningful incarceration.” In one case, she said, “I watched a man… successfully request that his probation be modified so that he could continue to enter people’s homes to do his job. Homes with families, homes with children, and the court agreed.”

Kelly Dore described her own case, telling lawmakers, “Thirty-three years ago, my own predator and his associates pled guilty to 19 of 27 counts and walked free in this state. Colorado is still operating under the same framework today.” She later asked the committee, “Have any of you ever sat beside a three-year-old during an STD exam or walked into her reconstructive surgery because her body was destroyed by sexual violence? I have and I am one that’s also had to do that.”

District Attorney Brian Mason testified in support of the bill.

The ACLU of Colorado opposed SB26-015. Ariane Frosh said, “This bill also imposes a mandatory minimum sentence on judges who are best suited to determine a just punishment.” Regarding mandatory minimum sentencing in general, she stated that she supported restorative justice techniques and opposed mandatory minimums as a matter of policy. She argued that “Colorado should invest in meaningful prevention strategies, not double down on carceral penalties that fail to deter or rehabilitate offenders.”

During the second Senate Judiciary meeting, where the vote took place, lawmakers adopted two amendments before advancing the bill.

Amendment L.001 revised the bill’s definition of “commercial sexual activity,” replacing existing language with a definition stating that commercial sexual activity means sexual activity for which anything of value is given to, promised to, or received by a person. It further defined sexual activity to include sexual contact, sexual intrusion, sexual penetration, sexual exploitation of a child under section 18-6-403 (3)(a) and (3)(d), and an obscene performance as defined in statute. A sponsor explained, “So L1 is updating the definition of commercial sexual activity to line up with federal statute and other requests of some of the victims groups that you heard testimony from on Monday, and makes the bill more congruous with our federal statute and other parts of our statute.”

Amendment L.003 made a technical revision to statutory language. The amendment struck the phrase “WHO IS not his THEIR spouse” and substituted “not his spouse.”

An amendment addressing immunity for minors who might otherwise face charges was discussed but not offered. The chair explained it “was attempting to provide for immunity for minors who might otherwise be charged,” and said that “The organization representing district attorneys was pretty vigorously in opposition to such amendment…”

Even senators who ultimately voted yes acknowledged discomfort with mandatory minimum sentencing. One stated, “I, as a matter of philosophical value, struggle with mandatory minimums because I think judicial discretion is a critical part of due process,” before adding, “And yet this is so significant of a space that I can absolutely get beyond that.”

The Senate Judiciary committee voted 6–1 to refer SB26-015 to Appropriations with amendments.

HB26-1082: Mandating Life Without Parole

In the House Judiciary Committee, supporters argued the current approach leaves too much room for deals and too little fear for buyers.

Erin Lee testified, saying, “There’s only one way to stop child sex trafficking. And that’s to make the penalty harsh enough that people will not buy or sell a child, at least not here in Colorado.” She added, “If we’re not setting a deterrent for perpetrators, then they’re going to continue to victimize children.”

Survivor Kristen Muzzy testified in the separate HB26-1082 hearing, “The scars last a lifetime,” and added, “I never got justice.”

Elizabeth Hirschberger told lawmakers, “There is no world in which those who knowingly traffic children should walk free.” Wendy Smith testified, “Strong penalties are not about vengeance. They exist to protect the most vulnerable and to deter those who prey on them.”

Opposition came from civil liberties and defense advocates. Ariane Frosh told the committee, “HB 26-1082 irresponsibly and unnecessarily increases a criminal penalty,” and said, “These penalties have failed to deter human trafficking… and increasing those penalties will not curb this behavior.” She warned, “Mandating life without parole prevents a court from taking into account mitigating and individualized circumstances.”

Lori Rose Kepros testified that “We represent people who are prosecuted under this statute… and that includes survivors who get locked up and threatened by prosecutors…” and warned that “This bill would prevent any court… from determining that somebody is redeemable.”

HB26-1082 did not advance out of committee.

The Line Colorado Must Now Draw

Two years after HB24-1092 failed, the legislature again faced the same crossroads. One proposal sought to strengthen sentencing within Colorado’s existing framework. The other sought to mandate life without parole.

Only one survived committee.

This week’s testimony made clear that for some survivors and advocates, probation, plea deals, and judicial discretion have meant that buyers return to their lives while victims carry lifelong harm. For others, preserving judicial discretion remains essential to a just sentencing system.

The line lawmakers draw between those positions will determine how far the state is willing to go in punishing those who exploit children.

As SB26-015 continues to move through the legislation process, we will witness the position of Colorado legislators when it comes to the protection of future victims.