QUALITY OF MERCY - THE METHODS OF DECIDING WHO RECEIVES CLEMENCY OFTEN HAVE MORE TO DO WITH LUCK, PUBLICITY OR POLITICS THAN WITH JUSTICE

• NCJ Number: 57771
• Journal: Corrections Magazine Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Dated: (JUNE 1979) Pages: 46-53
• Author(s): K KRAJICK
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 8 pages
• Corporate Author: Criminal Justice Publications, Inc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IS EXAMINED, ALONG WITH THE SCOPE OF ITS APPLICATION AT BOTH THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL. POLITICS AND PUBLICITY ARE SEEN AS INFLUENCING CLEMENCY DECISIONS MORE THAN MERE JUSTICE.

Abstract

EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY WAS THE FORERUNNER OF PAROLE. UNTIL THE END OF THE 19TH CENTURY, IT WAS THE ONLY WAY A CONVICT COULD OBTAIN AN EARLY RELEASE FROM PRISON. HOWEVER, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCING, EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY BECAME A SAFETY VALVE FOR DEALING WITH EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND DISPENSING RITUAL MERCY, A FUNCTION RETAINED WITHIN CLEMENCY STATUTES NATIONWIDE. IN 31 STATES AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE HOLDS THE FINAL CLEMENCY POWER, WHICH CAN BE EXERCISED IN THREE FORMS--COMMUTATIONS, PARDONS, AND REPRIEVES. TEN STATES GIVE THE CLEMENCY POWER TO A SPECIAL BOARD, SOMETIMES THE PAROLE BOARD. SEVEN OTHER STATES HAVE GOVERNOR-APPOINTED BOARDS THAT CONSIDER ALL CLEMENCY APPLICATIONS, AND THEN PASS ONLY THE FAVORABLE ONES ON TO THE GOVERNOR. THE CONSERVATIVE ATTITUDE OF BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS TOWARD CLEMENCY IS REFLECTED IN THE STATISTICS. CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A PRISON POPULATION OF 20,000 PLUS, AND AN EX-CONVICT POPULATION SEVERAL TIMES THAT, GAVE 1 COMMUTATION AND 38 PARDONS IN 1978. AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WHERE THE PRESIDENT ACTS ON CLEMENCY RECOMMENDATIONS FORWARDED FROM A COMMITTEE AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, ONLY SIX COMMUTATIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED DURING THE CARTER PRESIDENCY. IN NEARLY ALL CASES, 'UNUSUAL REHABILITATION' IS LISTED AS A SUBSIDIARY REASON FOR COMMUTATION. BUT FOR THIS TO BE THE MAJOR REASON, AN INMATE MUST USUALLY HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF SOME INFLUENTIAL LEGISLATOR, JUDGE, OR OFFICIAL, PLUS THE SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY GROUPS AND, PERHAPS, THE PRESS. MANY SEE SUCH SUPPORT, NOT THE SITUATION OF THE PRISONER, AS THE REAL REASON BEHIND COMMUTATIONS. CRITICS POINT TO THE CASES OF PATRICIA HEARST, JAMES HOFFA, AND, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, RICHARD NIXON, AS EVIDENCE OF THE ROLE OF POLITICAL INFLUENCES ON CLEMENCY DECISIONS. (KBL)