With more executions than any other state, Texas has a tough-on-crime reputation.

Yet when it comes to dealing with young criminals, juvenile-justice advocates point to the Lone Star state as a model.

In 1987, just as crime rates nationwide were beginning to rise, Texas began a system of what was known as blended sentences for juveniles convicted of serious crimes, said Neil Nichols, the Texas Youth Commission's general counsel.

Youths charged with the most serious crimes in Texas still could be transferred to adult court. And until a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidated the death penalty for juveniles, they faced possible execution if convicted.

But with blended sentences, juveniles convicted of serious crimes could begin their time in the juvenile system, then transfer at age 21 into adult prisons where - depending on their progress - they could serve up to 40 years before becoming eligible for parole.

"That's what gives (an inmate) motivation. He can't just sit on his hands," Nichols said.

Advocates of sentencing reform for juveniles say that sort of system gives young criminals a chance to mature, making them better candidates for rehabilitation.

Sentencing teenagers to life without parole "goes against a long history in this country of believing in the capacity of society to rehabilitate people when they still are young. This is why we had a separate juvenile justice system," said Temple University's Laurence Steinberg, a psychologist who has been involved in the national debate.

"We are not very good at looking at people when they are 16 and predicting what they will be like when they are 30. We know there is a huge drop in violent crime after age 24 or 25," said Steinberg.

Ahmad Nelms, 23, a former gang member convicted of killing a Denver man in 1999 when he was 17, said his views have changed significantly in the six years he's spent behind bars.

"I never really understood (about the future). I was a kid. I thought it was all just, 'Have fun and hang out.' I was gangbanging it, doing all the wrong things. I didn't understand the big picture."

Because he was charged as an adult in Colorado and found guilty of first-degree murder, Nelms was automatically sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Until Sept. 1, that wouldn't have happened in Texas.

But a new law went into effect then, specifically allowing life without parole for young Texas murderers.

"Darn," said Paul Rosenthal, when reminded of the change in Texas. "I was just about to say how great it was in Texas."

Rosenthal is the legislative affairs director for the Pendulum Foundation, a Colorado Springs group that advocates juvenile sentencing reform. Even with the new law, he said, most serious juvenile offenders in Texas will likely end up with the blended sentences.

Dennis Schroeder © News Fate locked in after conviction: When Adam Drake was convicted of first-degree murder in 1999, the judge had no choice but to sentence him to life without parole. Judge David Parrish wondered at the time if he had done enough to inform Drake of the difference between life without parole handed down at trial vs. a lengthy sentence worked out in a plea bargain. This photo was taken at the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility in August.

Unlike Colorado's law, Texas law never mandated life without parole for first-degree murder. Furthermore, a hearing was required before a juvenile case could be transferred to adult court. Colorado prosecutors can file a juvenile case in adult court without such a hearing, unless the juvenile is under 14.

Texas changed its juvenile-sentencing laws in March, after the U.S. Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional for anyone younger than 18.

Dianne Clements, president of Justice for All, a Texas victims rights group, said there was a fear that dangerous killers who might have faced execution could eventually be eligible for parole just because they were juveniles when they committed their crimes.

The idea behind the new law, she said, was to remove the possibility that "17-year-olds can feasibly be out at 57."

Although Clements supported the change, she said she remains ambivalent about giving life-without-parole sentences to juveniles.

"Do I think it makes a difference in the real-world outcome? No, I don't," she said. Juries, she said, will likely give life-without-parole sentences to young killers who earlier might have gotten the death penalty.

"Some crimes," she said, "you just forfeit your right to be in society."

Harold "Hal" Gaither, a retired Texas juvenile court judge who testified before the Colorado legislature this spring, said Texas' new law illustrates the political realities of juvenile sentencing reform.

"You don't want to appear, from a political standpoint, to be soft on crime when you're talking about the taking of someone's life," Gaither said. "You have to let everybody know that what you're really after is fundamental fairness."

'A sliding scale of criminal responsibility'

A Colorado sentencing-reform bill that Gaither backed was vetoed in May by Gov. Bill Owens, after it had been amended to propose only a study of the issue.

Supporters of such legislation argue that there's a difference between youngsters and adults, even when those juveniles are tried in adult court for crimes such as murder.

"Their brains are simply immature developmentally, which affects their thought processes and ability to exercise self-control," said Barry Feld, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who has written several books on juvenile justice. Feld favors "a sliding scale of criminal responsibility" when it comes to sentencing juveniles, something he calls the "youth discount."

"Kids would get shorter sentences than adults on a sliding scale of criminal responsibility. A 14-year-old would get 25 percent of the adult sentence, a 16-year-old would get 50 percent," he said.

A life sentence for a 16-year-old would still amount to about 25 years in prison, he said.

"Even though they do the same horrific harm as adults, they are simply not as responsible," he said.

Society already takes this into account by setting older ages for when juveniles can vote, drive, drink and serve on juries, he said.

However, Colorado and most other states hold them as responsible as adults for serious crime.

'Little bitty condensed sentence'

Some scoff at Feld's idea.

Murder, said Gaither, "is not like the Reader's Digest. If somebody kills somebody with a gun, it's not with little bitty condensed bullets. He's not entitled to a little bitty condensed sentence."

He advocates sentencing teen killers for a long time, then making a thoughtful determination whether the person is a good candidate for parole.

Steven Drizin is a Northwestern University law professor who co-authored one of the briefs cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling striking down the death penalty for juveniles. He agrees that teens who kill should be punished but re-evaluated over time.

Brain research on teens shows that "adolescents are less culpable (and) it imposes an obligation on society to do what we can to impact these brains in pro-social ways," Drizin said.

Feld points out that the U.S. punishes juvenile offenders more severely than other nations.

"When I talk about my youth discount, it is not a radical idea," Feld said.

The issue

One in eight lifers in Colorado - 46 out of 360 - were sentenced for murders committed when they were younger than 18.

In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ends the death penalty for juveniles, a national debate is emerging over laws such as Colorado's that require life without parole for teens convicted as adults of first-degree murder.

• Those who want to change Colorado's law say:

New research shows juveniles' brains are not fully developed so their faulty judgment makes them less responsible for crimes than adults. Juveniles could be rehabilitated and should get a chance at parole.

• Those who oppose changes to the law say:

Inmates serving life without parole took others' lives and have forfeited their right to freedom. The young killers, if released, would pose too great a risk to society.

floriog@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-2361 lindsays@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5181