At age 19, Rene Lima-Marin participated in the armed robbery of two video stores. He was later arrested, convicted, and in 2000, he was given consecutive sentences totaling 98 years in a Colorado prison. But a court clerk mistakenly wrote that Lima-Marin was to serve his sentences concurrently, and in 2008, he was released on parole–90 years ahead of schedule.
When he was released, Lima-Marin clearly made the most of his second chance. He got a job, got married, and is now a father to both a son and step-son. He coaches his step-son’s soccer team and mentors youth on staying out of trouble. He completed the terms of his parole in 2013 and seemed to be a success story of the justice system–he made a mistake while still a teenager, was sent to prison for rehabilitation, and turned his life around as a more mature and responsible adult. What better proof could there be that the system works?
The flaw, of course, is that Lima-Marin was released early, and now that the mistake has been caught, he’s being forced to serve out the remaining 90 years of his sentence. The story has resulted in an outcry from many in the community, including faith leaders from the interfaith group Together Colorado, who held a rally and sent a letter to the governor calling for Lima-Marin to be pardoned. Lima-Marin’s wife Jasmine has also created a change.org petition calling for support of her husband, asking the question: “Does a man that was formally released from the penal system, met all the conditions of this release, and turned his life around deserve this type of justice?”
The case shines a spotlight on the sentencing practices that have contributed to our country’s massive prison population, which stands at about 2.2 million. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles, but that still wouldn’t address sentencing for someone like Lima-Marin, who despite still being a teenager at the time of his crime was also legally an adult. Does someone who makes a mistake at such a young age–and who obviously shows the ability to turn their life around–have a need to remain in prison for the rest of their life? If they have already achieved the goal of rehabilitation and no longer pose a threat to society, what is the need to keep them behind bars?
As we wrote in our March 2013 cover story, restorative justice practices have proven to be an effective alternative to punitive sentencing laws, and they shown that some criminals can succeed when given a second chance. It took a clerical error for Rene Lima-Marin to prove that he was capable of being a productive member of society. But his example begs the question: How many more men and women currently behind bars could do the same if given the opportunity?
