Sentinel Colorado takes up Gov. Jared Polis’ clemency decision involving Tina Peters, and the political blowback from Colorado attorney general candidates who are now racing to prove they are the most devoted altar servers at the Church of Rule of Law.
The useful question here is not whether Tina Peters is your hero, your villain, or your least favorite chapter in Colorado election drama. The better question is whether Colorado applies justice consistently, or whether mercy shows up only when the defendant is politically useful, socially acceptable, or convenient to someone’s campaign pitch.
Clemency is not acquittal. It is not a magic eraser. It does not mean the courts were wrong or the conduct was fine. In plain English, it is executive mercy, using the governor’s constitutional authority to reduce or alter punishment after the legal process has already done its work. Polis made that call. Now the political-legal class is making theirs, loudly and with all the subtlety of a marching band in a broom closet.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Sentinel Colorado frames the controversy around Polis’ clemency action for Tina Peters and the immediate outrage from attorney general candidates. Nothing says “serious legal philosophy” like a campaign statement written with a flamethrower and a donor list nearby.
- Peters remains a symbol in Colorado politics, but symbolism is where thinking often goes to die. The issue is not whether she deserves a fan club or a dunk tank. The issue is what standard Colorado is using for punishment, mercy, deterrence, and public trust.
- Attorney general candidates criticizing Polis should be asked one simple question: what is your actual rule? If clemency is wrong here, is it wrong because of the crime, the politics, the sentence, the timing, or because your campaign needed a press release before lunch?
- Hetal Doshi’s argument, as described by Sentinel Colorado, goes straight at the unequal-justice nerve: politically connected, white, or white-collar defendants often get sympathy that ordinary defendants do not. That claim deserves scrutiny, not a partisan eye roll. Regular people have suspected that for years, usually while paying legal bills they cannot afford.
- The public trust problem is bigger than Peters. When officials say “accountability,” people want to know if that word applies evenly, or if it changes shape depending on the defendant’s politics, ZIP code, résumé, and usefulness to the narrative. Funny how flexible principles get once they put on campaign shoes.
My Bottom Line
I do not need to turn Tina Peters into Joan of Arc to see the problem here. I also do not need to pretend every prosecution involving politics is automatically oppression. Adults can hold both thoughts at once. It is apparently a rare skill in Colorado government, so cherish it when you see it.
Polis used clemency power. That is real authority, not a loophole he found behind the couch. But power still requires explanation. If a governor reduces punishment in a politically explosive case, the public deserves more than vibes, deflection, and a lecture from people who suddenly discovered institutional integrity after polling their base.
The attorney general candidates have every right to criticize the decision. Good. Let them. But then they should give Colorado a standard that works when the defendant is not useful to them. Does mercy matter? Does proportionality matter? Does deterrence matter? Does prison time mean the same thing for a county clerk, a corporate criminal, a street offender, and a politically connected insider? Pick a principle and stick with it. Otherwise, spare us the powdered-wig routine.
The rule of law cannot be a campaign costume. If justice depends on who benefits from the outrage, it is not justice. It is theater with subpoenas. And Coloradans have seen enough theater from overpaid professionals who keep promising accountability while making sure the exits are clearly marked for their own side.
Source: Sentinel Colorado
Share your thoughts...