Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Rule bars hearing for juvenile lifers

Ritter spokesman: 'Misinterpretation' will be corrected

By Sue Lindsay, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Colorado Government

More stories »

Map my news

When it was established last year, Colorado's Juvenile Clemency Board was held out as a last ray of hope for young prisoners serving time for crimes they committed in their teens.

But 24 young prisoners serving life without parole - and many more serving lesser sentences - are ineligible to petition the board to reduce their sentences.

A misunterstood eligibility rule appears to be the problem.

It recently came to light when Christopher Selectman, 30, who is serving a life sentence for gunning down a man during a drug deal when he was 16, asked for an application and was told he wasn't entitled to one.

That's because he was 18 - an adult - by the time he was sentenced, according to his prison case manager.

In his executive order establishing the juvenile clemency board last fall, Gov. Bill Ritter said it was designed for juvenile offenders who had been tried as adults.

Selectman certainly appears to fit that designation.

But criteria adopted by the board state that to be eligible for clemency, an inmate must have been a "juvenile when he was tried and convicted as an adult."

In other words, officials didn't consider Selectman's age when he committed the crime, but rather his age when he was tried.

In practice, prison case managers are using the final court sentencing order to determine eligibility, a date that may be even later than the conviction date. This is what happened to Selectman.

Since many cases, especially murder charges, can take a year or more to get to trial, a number of young prisoners become ineligible under this definition.

Half of inmates ineligible

Using this standard, half of the 48 prisoners serving life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles would be ineligible to apply for clemency because they had turned 18 by the time of sentencing.

Dozens of other young prisoners serving lesser sentences also could be affected by this limitation on eligibility.

The criteria have ignited a storm of outrage among advocates for teens serving adult life prison terms for crimes they committed while under 18.

"I was stunned," said Mary Ellen Johnson, director of the Pendulum Foundation, which advocates for juvenile justice.

"This interpretation really knocks out a lot of juveniles that we've been fighting for," she said. "They will be devastated. They have such a slim chance to begin with. They had a little bit of hope, and now even that seems to be slipping away."

But juvenile clemency board chairwoman Jeanne Smith says glitches can be expected in a new system and will be worked out.

"Since this group has just begun and the spirit was to give juveniles sentenced as adults the opportunity to get review by a panel with expertise in juvenile matters, it's a little early to panic."

She said petitioners can seek a waiver so their cases can still go before the juvenile board, though she stopped short of guaranteeing that all such waivers would be granted.

"I can't commit for what the board will do," she said.

Mark Noel, director for extradition and clemency, said such waivers are generally granted.

"The system is very flexible," he said. "I feel very comfortable that if they want to be reviewed by the juvenile board, they will be."

Noel said inmates deemed ineligible by the criteria also can petition for clemency from the adult clemency board.

But Johnson said the whole idea of the juvenile board was to assemble a group of individuals sensitive to the developmental and maturity issues of defendants convicted of heinous crimes at such a young age, as well as the higher likelihood of successful rehabilitation.

Governor's intent unmet

"This is very, very troubling to me," she said. "This juvenile clemency board is just another thing that sounds so good in theory, but then you watch them go on to destroy it in practice.

"Clemency is always a long shot. They have such an uphill battle to being with, to throw all these obstacles in their way makes it seem that much more overwhelming."

As a result of the Rocky Mountain News' inquiry, Ritter's spokesman, Evan Dreyer, said he expects that the eligibility issue will be resolved at the board's meeting in June.

"There has been a misinterpretation," he said.

Dreyer said the intent of the governor's executive order creating the board was that eligibility was determined by the date of the offense, not sentencing.

"The board will take this up at their next meeting, knowing that this is the governor's intent," he said.

Meanwhile, prison case managers have been instructed to have inmates who have turned 18 write letters requesting waivers so their clemency petition may be considered, said state prisons spokeswoman Katherine Sanguinetti.

So far, the board has received two petitions for clemency, Noel said.

"This is the best board in the country," he said. "I am just stunned by the caliber and intellect of these people. If there are problems, we'll work them out."

lindsays@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5181

Juvenile Clemency Board eligibility

* An inmate serving a life sentence must have served at least 10 years.

* An inmate sentenced to the Youth Offender System, a boot-camp alternative to prison for juvenile offenders, must serve at one-third of his sentence.

* Other inmates must serve at least one-third of their sentence, or 10 years, whichever is less.

* Inmates convicted of disciplinary violations in prison must wait two years to apply.

* Inmates convicted of assaulting a peace officer or prison staff are not eligible.

* Inmates with pending cases or cases under appeal are not eligible

* Waivers may be granted by the governor or the executive director of the Department of Corrections in cases of medical emergencies, catastrophic medical or mental health problems, highly extraordinary situations or in the interest of justice.

Christopher Selectman

* Age: 30

* Crime: In 1994, he killed McKinley Dixon, 18, while trying to rob him of a baggie of marijuana outside an Aurora apartment complex.

* Convicted of first-degree murder: July 1995

* Age when he committed crime: 16

* Age when convicted: 17

* Age when sentenced: 18

* Deemed ineligible to petition Juvenile Clemency Board: 2008

Comments

  • April 29, 2008

    7:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DahmersCookbook writes:

    Doesn't anyone believe in going 'down in A blaze of glory' anymore?
    If your facing life in prison and are A practicing Atheist you have only one choice, Marshall law! Armed to the teeth! Draw inspiration from the Matrix and Marilyn Manson.

  • April 29, 2008

    8:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mtnsjohn writes:

    Life without parole should mean exactly that. Jurors who weigh the evidence and, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, choose to convict must have a clear picture of the punishment attached to a crime.

    A few years ago, "life imprisonment" in Colorado really meant 20 years before the possibility of parole. Some jurors were the last to know. Life without parole becomes meaningless if it is redefined for certain offenders.

    There are crimes so hideous that any punishment less than the death penalty is an act of mercy, and usually far more mercy than the offender gave his or her victim(s). Anything less than the real sentence of life without the possibility of parole does an injustice to a jury, the surviving family and friends and to society.

    Madam Justice is blindfolded carrying scales, and a sword. Should we remove the blindfold and show her winking?

  • April 29, 2008

    10:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jjo1977 writes:

    The jurors did not know the sentence in any of these cases and many jurors have expressed regretting their guilty verdicts when they later learned of the sentence. Studies show that child murderers sent to juvenile facilities and eventually released do not go on to commit violent crimes. The creation of the board and it's quick response to the gliches inherent in any new process should be applauded.

  • April 29, 2008

    10:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mtnsjohn writes:

    Jimminy: Of course not, and considering the ability of this governor to make sound plea decisions, I worry who may be unleashed to revictimize. The clemency board will make recommendations from a sterilized environment having never visited the crime scene and with little input from all the folks victimized by the offender.

    One can argue whether harsh punishments are deterents. How are we to ever know, considering we cannot enter the minds of those who were deterred and did not commit a crime fearing the punishment.

    Juveniles tried as adults for the serious crime(s) they committed are apparently now being viewed as "victims of the system" so we owe them clemency. What goofy thinking.

  • April 29, 2008

    11:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kmeissner writes:

    Everyone forgets the fact that he KILLED another human being! For weed! I don't care if it was a drug dealer or a mother of 5. He still killed someone and he should not be able to re-enter society because people feel bad for him because he was 16 when it happened.

  • April 29, 2008

    4:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lisa_Kenney writes:

    The point of this article isn't to pass judgment on this specific case. The issue at hand is that the criteria for the governor's juvenile clemency board are faulty as written, and therefore the majority of juveniles sentenced to life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes committed before the age of 18 are not able to submit applications to the board who will review the cases. Obviously, allowing an offender to apply to the juvenile clemency board will not result in clemency and clemency doesn't even mean release. In all likelihood, most applications for clemency will be denied and there's a very high likelihood that if any are granted, the result will be reduced sentences, not commutation of sentences. The purpose of the clemency board will be to review the actual cases and consider the testimony of prosecutors, victims and their families, in addition to reviewing the the cases of the offenders and their records while incarcerated. It's easy to make a blanket statement that a juvenile who has killed someone should remain in prison for the rest of his or her natural life, but convicted murderers don't all receive life without parole. Many convicted murderers serve finite sentences and are released. It's not a matter of feeling sorry for inmates who committed crimes as juveniles, it's a matter of taking youth into consideration as one circumstance and determining whether or not some may be worthy and capable of rehabilitation. Not all of the juveniles who are incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole actually killed anyone. For those who have the potential for rehabilitation, and I don't believe that to be a large number because maximum security prisons don't foster maturity and rehabilitation, I would support the consideration for clemency. A juvenile convicted of murder today could receive a mandatory sentence of 40 years in prison, not life. A sixteen year old who participated in a murder, has served more than ten years in prison, who has demonstrated remorse and the potential to be rehabilitated should at least have the opportunity to apply for clemency. The clemency board provides a means for each case to be reviewed on its own merits.

  • December 23, 2008

    12:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rnlskl writes:

    What consitutes a "juvenile?" Someone who committed the crime under the age of 18? A certain "juvenile" blew a kid's head off two weeks prior to his 18th birthday while committing another crime at the time, and even bragged about it to the victims family while in court stating that he was a "juvenile" and wouldn't serve much time. He did not even know this kid. The victim's family will never forget.

    So who are we protecting?