TheAgitator.com
Clemency on Trial
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009My crime column this week looks at Mike Huckabee’s pardon of Maurice Clemmons, then jumps off into a broader discussion of the pardon and clemency power.
The gist: The most important use of these powers are as a check against possible injustices. Unfortunately they’re more commonly handed down as gifts used to show mercy, or to declare convicted criminals rehabilitated. What ought to be an important a check or balance on the judiciary has instead become a kind of God-like power to confer redemption.
(As posted on Radley’s facebook):
Good article Radley, though aren’t you leaving out one other dimension of the Pardon power: actual innocence? That is, if a governor pardons a person absed on a belief they he/she is innocent (take Corey Maye) then isn’t the Governor saying that he/she believes the pardonee is NOT a killer/rapist/violent person? If so then doens’t the Governor go on the hook for the rest of the pardonee’s actions?
I think the difference there be that the Governor doesn’t think the pardonee is guilty, not that they are actually innocent. Going down the Corey Maye path I wouldn’t see any problems with a Governor pardoning him because the state presented a bogus case with bogus evidence. This still wouldn’t answer the question whether or not Corey Maye was actually innocent. Truthfully the only person that knows what was going on in Corey Mayes head is Corey Maye.
I don’t think a Governor should be on the hook for extra guilt there, on the other hand the Procecution probably should be.
All I know is thank god he did pardon that guy, or else those 4 pigs could still be walking the streets infringing on peoples rights.
A dead pig is a good pig. Or however that goes.
I have always though, what would be the ultimate use of pardon power…
Imagine if a president on his way out of office pardoned EVERYBODY. As in “tomorrow I want all of our jails EMPTY”
Man I would love to see that stink play out. There would be some pretty pissed off prison guard unions!
Would probably work out better though if all non-violent offenders were pardoned… or all drug offenders?
Very even-handed and well done piece.
FTA:
Right on target.
What ought to be an important a check or balance on the judiciary has instead become a kind of God-like power to confer redemption.
Hey, what’s the point of running for office, being perpetually surrounded by people who do nothing but blow sunshine up your ass, being mostly immune from the law, having women constantly trying to get you in the sack, being courted by the news media and every large special interest seeking a handout, and living in a big ol’ mansion, if you don’t get to exercise “God-like powers”? In fact, after all that special treatment, you’d have to be felling pretty god-like. If you’re the president, you can start a war and send thousands of people off to their death and tens of thousands more off to be maimed. But, if you’re just a stinkin’ governor, all you can do is pardon people and shit.
” asscore | December 8th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
All I know is thank god he did pardon that guy, or else those 4 pigs could still be walking the streets infringing on peoples rights.
A dead pig is a good pig. Or however that goes”.
Disgusting.
I’m as opposed to the police state and to abuse of authority as the next right thinking libertarian, but to wish anybody’s children orphans or to applaud cold blooded murder is simply beyond the pale.
#7
“If cops continue to play at being an army of occupation, they should expect the subjects to play their role in return. Vive la resistance.”
- J. D. Tucille
@ Nick T: Pardons (at least at the federal level) are traditionally unrelated to claims of actual innocence. Look at Hamilton’s Federalist #74. He’s clearly not talking about innocence. Additionally, accepting a pardon has traditionally been seen as an admission of guilt (leading to some people to reject pardons). Pardons were seen as a way of mitigating the sometimes harsh penalties of criminal law.
@ Pierre: That would only work with respect to federal prisoners, which only house a small number of the overall prisoners in the United States. Moreover, nonviolent offenders is a broad category. Someone who swindled a million dollars would be non-violent, yet deserve to be in prison. Drug offenders could be equally problematic, depending on how you define it. In law, the fucking is always in the definitions.
Each state has different methods for pardons under the state constitutions and may have provisions for actual innocence.
@1
Even if he is pardoned for true innocence, it was because he was innocent of that particular crime. You can’t keep people locked up, simply because at some point they may commit a crime.
I think Huckabee so much want’s to be god as he wants to be Jesus.
@#7 Yanqui Bob:
Don’t feed the trolls… especially when he’s most likely a federal agent provocateur, anyway.
Michael Gerson’s op-ed piece in today’s Washington Post seems to be kind of a rewrite of Radley’s (including nearly the same Hamilton quote).
Let’s see. A Black teen committs a couple of crimes and recieves a sentence way out of proportion to his actions. The Governor recieves a request for clemency that is reccommended by the Judge who gave him that sentence. So said Governor reduces the teen’s sentence to be more in line with the crimes that he comitted.
Damn. From what I have read on this blog, most people would be asking why the Governor didn’t pardon him out right. Huckabee didn’t release him from jail, he reduced his sentence. The Parole Board released him from jail. If there is to be a backlash, let the Parole Board take the heat. Let the Judge in Washington state who approved his bail take the heat.
What if this had happened a few years earlier and Bill Clinton was still the Governor, would we still be having this discussion?
@Jim Collins:
No, because Bill Clinton has no further political aspirations so it serves no one’s purpose to attack his (admittedly shabby) character.
@Ben:
Federalist 74 is everyone’s go-to document for the pardon power.