Since January of 2008, this nationally recognized blog has been dedicated to following the very latest news regarding presidential pardons and the pardon power (or clemency powers) as exercised in each state. Reader comments are certainly welcomed but a premium will be placed on civility, relevance and originality. Please refrain from extended copying and pasting.
AMNESTY - A general or group pardon that is usually granted before conviction. This power is most commonly associated with post-war clemency, for draft evasion, sedition or other violations of selective service laws. Amnesties may or may not be conditional
CLEMENCY - At the federal level, this is a broad term which is interpreted to include all of the other terms defined in this section. Sometimes, "clemency" is described as "the pardon power," which is acceptable, so long as it is understood that, formally speaking, a pardon is one of several forms of clemency. Clemency powers can be found in all three branches of the federal government (executive, legislative and judicial). At the state level, "clemency" is sometimes meant to be synonymous with "commutation." Thus "clemency" is used to release indivduals from prison. "Pardons" in such states are used to restore the civil rights of those who have already served their time.
COMMUTATION - A reduction in the severity of a punishment that is commonly confused with a pardon. Commutations reduce the length of a sentence or the amount of a fine. Perhaps the most high-profile commutations are those that change a death sentence to life in prison, or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Commutations can be controversial if the "reduction" is, arguably, not a reduction. Imagine a 2-year sentence being commuted to a $900,000 fine. Is that really a reduction in the severity of the punishment? Commutations can have conditions attached. Supreme Court decisions appear to suggest that commutations of sentence cannot be refused. Although there was a time when commutations were granted more frequently than pardons, they are very rarely granted today.
EXPUNGEMENT - Each state is free to define expungement as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of expungement. See also "sealing" (below)
PARDON - The removal of all disability or punishment. Pardons may be granted before or after conviction. Today, they are usually granted in order to restore civil rights (the right to vote, hold public office, participate in a jury, own a firearm, etc.). Pardons can have conditions attached. There has been a steady decline in the granting of pardons since 1900 whether one looks at the raw number of pardons, the percentage of applications that result in pardons or the percentage of presidential clemency decisions which result in pardons. There has, however, been a more accelerated decline since the late 1960s.
REMISSION - Most often, remissions were devices used to remove fines and forfeitures. In some instances, however, the word remit was used to simply remove (as opposed to reducing) a portion of a sentence. Today, federal clemency statistics do not even count remissions as a separate category of clemency decisions.
REPRIEVE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Sometimes used as a synonym for "stay." See Respite, below.
RESPITE - Delays the imposition of a punishment without reference to such issues as due process or the guilt or innocence of the accused. Typically, respites are granted for a specific number of days (30 to 60) but they have often been followed by additional respites and have also been granted in an entirely open-ended fashion (as in, "We will get back to you, when we can."). Today, the word "reprieve" is more likely to be used for an act of clemency that delays punishment.
SEALING - Each state is free to define sealing as it pleases, but, generally, it referes to a process whereby records pertaining to a case are removed from the view of the public. In some instances, the records do not completely "disappear," but are available to law enforcement. States also routinely exempt certain offenses from the possibility of sealing. See also "expungement"(above).
Background: On September 11th of last year, Scott Hensen (of Grits for Breakfast) and the Editor of this blog (P.S. Ruckman, Jr.) filed an application with the Office of the Pardon Attorney (Department of Justice) on behalf of the great American writer O.Henry (see application here). The basis of the request for posthumous pardon was spelled out with meticulously detail and, in addition, we researched clemency grants in the aftermath of O.Henry's offense so as to get a sense of how likely a pardon would have been granted had he ever personally applied for one (see "Reasons for Pardon" here). Within a few days, the U.S. Pardon Attorney, Ronald Rodgers, responded to our application (see his response here).
Update:The Editor of this blog (P.S. Ruckman, Jr.) has written a letter of complaint to President Obama. An additional copy of the complaint was sent to U.S. Senator, Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). The letter holds that the Pardon Attorney's response falls far short of the high standard of excellence one would expect from an employee of the Department of Justice. At best, it demonstrates an inability to comprehend the content of the application. At worst, it intentionally mischaracterizes the content of the application to reach a preordained conclusion. Either way, it is the Editor's very strong sense that the application was not given the kind of serious, respectful consideration that any application for clemency deserves. Readers are certainly invited to agree, or disagree. See the full letter of complaint here.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It seems to me that one could oppose posthumous pardons, generally, and, yet, at the same time, view them as acceptable alternatives to complete inaction that is the result of cowardice and/or incompetence. Why doesn't the pardon attorney seem to understand that? That is your position, right?
EDITOR: Anon1, You have the right idea, of course. My view, however, is that the posts on this blog have nothing to do with the application. The application should have been reviewed on its own merits. Period.
I do not know the pardon attorney personally. So I cannot divine his intentions. I don't know if he was trying to be witty, cute, sarcastic or what. Or maybe he thought I would flattered that he mentioned my blog. Who knows?
Senator Durbin has the ability to speak with the president by phone or in person and may even be able to arrange for an Illinois resident to speak with him as this is a big enough problem.
4 comments:
It seems to me that one could oppose posthumous pardons, generally, and, yet, at the same time, view them as acceptable alternatives to complete inaction that is the result of cowardice and/or incompetence. Why doesn't the pardon attorney seem to understand that? That is your position, right?
A pardon cannot be granted if, somewhere, someone, might misinterpret it as a declaration of innocence ! What a hoot !
EDITOR: Anon1, You have the right idea, of course. My view, however, is that the posts on this blog have nothing to do with the application. The application should have been reviewed on its own merits. Period.
I do not know the pardon attorney personally. So I cannot divine his intentions. I don't know if he was trying to be witty, cute, sarcastic or what. Or maybe he thought I would flattered that he mentioned my blog. Who knows?
Regardless, his approach was unimpressive.
best,
Senator Durbin has the ability to speak with the president by phone or in person and may even be able to arrange for an Illinois resident to speak with him as this is a big enough problem.
Post a Comment