New Colorado Law to Conceal Criminal Past

A bill that will allow drug dealers and growers to conceal their felony records was passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper in March.
According to an article in Monday's Denver Post, Rep. Mark Fernandino, D-Denver, who sponsored House Bill 1167 said, "There's a benefit to society by making sure these people who've served their time and recovered can...become part of society again.”

Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey called the law, "deceptive to the public." Morrissey believes the DA's office will now become flooded by requests to seal offender records, and that dating sites and child care providers will be overrun by concealed felons.

The new law allows some felony drug offenders to petition the court to seal their records after three to 10 years of completing their sentence if the offender has abided by the terms of their parole and not committed any new offenses. The new law would even conceal these records from other law enforcement agencies and some professional regulatory agencies.

Giving people, even felons, a second chance is admirable, maybe even the American way - but shouldn't all nonviolent offenders get a second chance at a new start? A man who waits in his car outside of a middle school to sell drugs to children will serve a few years in prison, a few years on parole, and under the new law, can have his criminal record sealed like nothing ever happened. Meanwhile, a 19-year-old adolescent with a 14- year-old boy or girlfriend will be given a life sentence, spend 10 or more years in prison, will have to register for life on a soon to be, national sex offender registry, and will have to   disclose to all future employers the nature and details of her/his crime.

What is the biggest public safety concern, a strung out middle schooler whose drug use will inevitably lead to a real sex crime either in exchange for drugs or through consent while intoxicated, or the dating habits of teenagers? Both are criminal and both deserve the attention of law enforcement and prosecutors, but don't both also deserve a second chance? House Bill 1167 is a good first step in bringing some common sense to Colorado's punishment centric judicial system, but common sense needs to be applied to all nonviolent offenders, not just a select few.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a related story, on March 27, the Denver Post reported a rash of violent crimes involving convicted felons who were on probation at the time they committed their new violent offenses.

The story was a typical Post hysterical criminal justice piece with scary mug shots and a warning to legislators, currently reviewing legislation to reduce the expensive prison population, that these, "new crimes raises questions about whether the state is effectively balancing the responsibility of rehabilitating offenders with public safety." To put this ''rash'' into perspective, the crimes involved six offenders on intensive supervision over a span of nine months the total number of offenders on intensive supervision during this period was 3448, this means 0.17 percent of all of the most dangerous offenders on the streets committed a violent crime - the Post didn't mention that in their article.

How much better of a job does the Post expect from the state's parole officers? If this type of fear mongering journalism by the Post seems familiar it should. Remember when Governor Ritter proposed releasing inmates a few months early from their mandatory release date, the Post crucified the first 10 to be released with full color mug shots on the front page and a list of their crimes in the story that followed. These were offenders that had paid their full debt to society, but somehow that wasn't good enough for the Post and the editors used these people to send a message to the Governor - the early releases stopped.

What is interesting about these stories, and how they are related is that the Post, always vigilant to report any aspect of legislation that might benefit an offender, totally ignored the debate over HB1167 and only reported the story a month after it had already been signed by the new Governor. With only one major newspaper in the state, and the Post's practice of advocating on criminal justice issues, this is an important conversation to have - did the Post just miss the story, was it crowded out by more important news or did the Post choose to ignore the debate until after the bill was signed into law? Let the Wire know what you think.