Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Don't seal those records

Bill targets old convictions

The Rocky

Published February 9, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Should someone who commits a crime be able to conceal the conviction from the public after maintaining a clean record for 10 years after completing the sentence and any additional restrictions?

Or should the public's right to see that record - an essential principle of open government and accountability - be preserved?

This is what the debate over House Bill 1082 is all about.

Proponents of HB 1082 argue that those who make one serious mistake in life deserve a second chance. They hold up as examples some now-respectable citizens who, they say, remain haunted decades later by a single conviction, particularly when seeking employment or housing. They point out that a person's history is easy to dredge up in today's Information Age.

We applaud second chances, too. And we'll concede that personal information is infinitely easier to access than ever before. But we also believe that actions have consequences, even though, in most cases, those consequences should diminish over time - and almost always do. People rarely judge someone with a single old conviction for possession of illegal drugs the same as they do someone convicted of the same offense last week.

HB 1082 is the reincarnation of last year's House Bill 1107, which Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed. This year's version includes amendments made to the 2007 bill as well as additional revisions negotiated this week with the governor in the hope of gaining his signature this time around.

A hearing on the latest version is scheduled for Tuesday. The bill would allow Class 5 and 6 drug felonies (possession offenses) to be sealed after the waiting period, and many misdemeanor offenses, excluding the most serious, such as those involving child abuse. It also requires district attorney approval and court review before a request to have a conviction sealed can be granted.

Without doubt the bill is better than last year's. However, no amount of tweaking will alter the reality that it will conceal once-public records - and through a process that will inevitably favor the well-heeled and well-connected.

Given the bargaining that has occurred, it appears likely the governor will sign this bill into law if it passes. Even so, we will always feel he was right the first time about the wisdom of sealing records.

Comments

  • February 9, 2008

    5:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    I grew up in 17 juvenile facility's in 3 states for one charge. I was taken into the United States Armed Forces upon completion and recieved an Honorable Discharge. I then went on to my finishing school at Raiford State Prison. I have one felony conviction as an adult, all these events are over twenty years old. Since my release over 20 years ago, I have kept one police officer from being shot with his own revolver. Stood up for many good citizens. Fought and was shot by an armed robber at a jewelry store. I am fully credentialized on this issue. Let my record stand for all to see. I hope they understand where I was forged into the man I am today. To those I have loyally served, I came to you with honor and never hid or lied about my past. After 20 years, I walk where few in our society would be trusted. I am trusted to vast sums of wealth held by another. There is nothing but a handshake of honor as contract. I am quite proud of the road I have travelled. Forgiveness is a recognition of what I owe. A pardon perhaps, but don't seal my record. My record is the strenth of my honor. Most felons do not agree with this: to know who I am, you must look at who I was. My shame disappeared long ago!

  • February 9, 2008

    6:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rickg19611 writes:

    Do you mean like a Democrat DA who cuts secret plea bargains with illegal aliens and then convinces a Democrat judge to continue to coverup by sealed the records and prosecuting anyone who dares reveal the outcome to the citizen of Colorado?

    How about the media in Denver (RMN included) that helps cover it up by refusing to even look into the scam?

  • February 9, 2008

    7:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GrayOwl writes:

    Public records should have no statute of limitations. Once public, always public. Period. How else can we run an open society?