Showing posts with label G. Washington. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G. Washington. Show all posts

Monday, August 8, 2016

Obama Makes History on Two Fronts

Last Wednesday, President Obama granted 214 commutations of sentence, the most any president has ever granted in a single day. In doing so, he broke Franklin Roosevelt's previous record, of 151.

We searched through our data again and discovered President Obama also set another record: for the largest number of individual acts of clemency (pardons, commutations, remissions of fines and forfeiture, respites, etc.) granted in a single day:

Click on Image (Above) to Enlarge
Prof Mark Osler kindly notes that these data would also exclude (in addition to amnesties, or group pardons) grants by Gerald Ford's Presidential Clemency Board - data which are not compiled in DOJ / OPA clemency warrant records. Interestingly, when recent presidents set these marks, it was hardly noticed and no one had any idea of context, whether or not any record had been set. Having gathered comprehensive original data on clemency, the Editor of this Blog is uniquely qualified to provide that context.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

SHOCK: Obama's Pardon Disaster. The Merciless Term

Barack Obama's first term has come to an end and we are now ready to report that his four-years as president represent the least merciful term for any modern president (Democrat or Republican) and, quite possibly, the least merciful in the entire history of the United States (see footnote below).

This is, of course, an incredible distinction for a president who repeatedly notes that America is a place where people get "second chances," from a president who complained bitterly about overly-harsh sentences given to criminal defendants simply because they were African-American, and from a president who promised us "hope and change."

Will the second term be like (or worse than) the first? Frankly, there are very few signs that anything will change in any significant way - save the conventional wisdom that presidents tend to wax irresponsible in the fourth and final year of the term and are subject to a world of pressure from interested parties (resulting in last-minute pardon splurges). In sum, we appear to be on the track to an equally merciless second term and/or a Clintonesque pardon disaster.


Individual Acts of Clemency
(Pardons, Commutations of Sentence, Respites)
George Washington *
Barack Obama
George Washington
George W. Bush
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
Bill Clinton
George H.W. Bush
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison

* These data are based on Professor Ruckman's original data set, collected from copies of State Department clemency warrants found on Microfilm Set T969, National Archives, the Annual Report of the U.S. Attorney General and a CD set of clemency warrants issued by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Recently, George Lardner has uncovered additional acts of clemency in the first term of George Washington, suggesting State Department records may be incomplete, at least for that administration. There is no additional evidence of overlooked actions in any other administration.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Reason on Obama's Pardon Stinginess

Over at Town Hall, Jacob Sullum, Senior Editor of Reason Magazine has a piece on "Barack the Unmerciful." Sullum notes that the "reputedly progressive and enlightened man" has a "strong shot" at wining the title of "least merciful president."

With just 22 pardons and 1 commutation of sentence, is in the company of:
... George Washington, who probably did not have many clemency petitions to address during the first few years of the nation's existence; William Henry Harrison, who died of pneumonia a month after taking office; and James Garfield, who was shot four months into his presidency and died that September. 
If one changes the focus to complete 4-year terms, however:
With the exception of Washington's first term, then, Obama so far has been stingier with pardons and commutations than any other president, especially when you take into account the growth of the federal penal system during the last century, the elimination of parole, the proliferation of mandatory minimums, and the concomitant increase in petitions. This is a remarkable development for a man who proclaims that "life is all about second chances" and who has repeatedly described our criminal justice system as excessively harsh. 
Sullum also notes:
Obama has granted clemency petitions at a lower rate than all of his recent predecessors. The odds of winning a pardon from Obama so far are 1 in 59, compared to 1 in 2 under Richard Nixon, 1 in 3 under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, 1 in 5 under Ronald Reagan, 1 in 10 under George H.W. Bush, 1 in 5 under Bill Clinton, and 1 in 13 under George W. Bush, per Ruckman's calculations. The odds for commutation are even longer: 1 in 6,631 under Obama, compared to probabilities under the seven preceding presidents ranging from 1 in 15 (Nixon) to 1 in 779 (Bush II). 
The piece ends by noting that it is an "amazing accomplishment" that Obama has "made Richard Nixon look like a softie." See full editorial here.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

ProPublica: History of Pardons

The ProPublica web page has a feature entitled "Timeline: A History of Pardons" (linked here). We have informed ProPublica of the following errors / suggestions:

1. If the page intends to say George Washington's first pardon was granted in 1794, that is incorrect. The first known Washington clemency warrant was signed in 1791. If the intent is to imply the first Whiskey Rebel pardon was granted in 1794, that is also incorrect. The first of that batch was granted in 1797.

2. U.S. v. Wilson should be dated 1833, not 1832.

3. Arthur O'Bryan was pardoned by Abraham Lincoln in 1861, not 1864.

4. Dr. Samuel Mudd, who set the leg of a fleeing John Wilkes Booth, and lied about his relationship with Booth, was pardoned in 1869, not 1868. And his pardon was not based on the grounds of innocence. This is noteworthy because the Mudd family has, for a long, long time now, tried to have his name cleared via a pardon based on an assertion of innocence.

5. It is also worthy of note that Spengler and Arnold (Lincoln assassination conspirators) were pardoned just before Andrew Johnson left office, again, in 1869, not 1868.

6. Andrew Johnson's post-Civil War decisions are best described as amnesties, not pardons.

7. Charles W. Morse was not pardoned. His prison sentence was commuted by President Taft. Furthermore, the commutation of sentence was granted in January of 1912, not 1908.

8. The ruling in Biddle is best summarize as follows: Pardons are not private acts of grace but are, instead, best thought of as the by-product of a constitutional scheme which aims to determine what is in the best interest of the public. Consequently, the thoughts, desires and wishes of the recipient are irrelevant.

9. Richard Nixon granted Jimmy Hoffa a conditional commutation of sentence, not a presidential pardon. The condition was, of course, challenged in federal court, until Hoffa had the poor taste to disappear.

11. Jimmy Carter granted an amnesty to Vietnam War era offenders.

12. George H.W. Bush did not pardon Orlando Bosch.

13. Readers should be aware that the data - which originate from the Department of Justice - are actually arranged by fiscal year, as opposed to calendar year.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Greenwald, Dramatist Extraordinaire!

It is reported that Glenn Greenwald's new book, entitled, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, argues:
the Nixon pardon set a precedent that ushered in an era of “elite immunity,” a two-tiered legal system that exempts the rich and powerful from the laws applied to other Americans. The legacy of the pardon, Greenwald writes, is that "the United States has become a nation that does not apply the rule of law to its elite class."
We certainly look forward to the data which support that claim, as well as these:
Nowadays, with only rare exceptions, each time top members of the nation’s political class are caught committing a crime, the same reasons are hauled out to get them off the hook.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

The Top Ten Clemency Stories of 2010

Here, in our humble opinion are the Top Ten Clemency Stories of 2010. Each item is also linked. Simply click on the associated number. Oh, and by the way, sorry, no Billy the Kid nonsense here:

Number 10: The Mighty Quinn - When former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) was run out of office, he left a stack of literally thousands of clemency applications behind, some dating back more than a decade. His replacement, Pat Quinn (D) promised to address the applications as best as he could, in a more timely fashion. In his mind, timely attention is implicit in the very notion of a just application process. Quinn kept his word.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The Conservative Case for the Pardon Power

Right On Crime (added to our blog listing) is a new site which claims to focus on "Conservative" views of the criminal justice system. In particular, it takes an interest in reducing crime, reducing the costs of criminal justice, reforming past offenders, restoring victims and protecting communities. In its Statement of Principles, the site notes that "Conservatives are known for being tough on crime," but argues it is also vital to achieve "a cost-effective system that protects citizens, restores victims, and reforms wrongdoers." In addition:
The corrections system should emphasize public safety, personal responsibility, work, restitution, community service, and treatment—both in probation and parole, which supervise most offenders, and in prisons. An ideal criminal justice system works to reform amenable offenders who will return to society through harnessing the power of families, charities, faith-based groups, and communities.
With these very concerns (and others) in mind, here are some reasons why Conservatives should favor well-articulated clemency policies which 1) regularize the process and minimize the tendency toward last-minute blitzes 2) restore a proper balance between the branches of government 3) address the specific concerns of Conservatives and 4) re-educate the American public as to the significance of the pardon power:

Reason 1: The pardon power is explicitly vested in the President of the United States by Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. It is not derived from a so-called "elastic clause" or inferred from penumbras emanating from the Bill of Rights. The pardon power is not the result of a "test" imposed by judicial fiat, or a goal-oriented construction of the traditions and conscience of the people, or tortured divination of what is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. It is a power explicitly granted and as firmly entrenched in the Constitution as the provisions creating a House and Senate and the federal judiciary.

Reason 2: In addition to being an explicit feature of our Constitution, the Founding Fathers made a conscious effort to emphasize the importance of this power. Federalist 74 (authored by Alexander Hamilton, who argued for the pardon power in his first speech at the Constitutional Convention) notes that pardons are a logical by-product of "humanity and good policy." Why? Because "the criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity." The cure for this tendency? "Easy access" (yes, you read that right), "easy access" to "exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt." Otherwise, says Federalist 74, "justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."

Reason 3: The pardon power is not a fetish of ancient monarchs that accidentally crept its way into the Constitution. It is an important part of our system of checks and balances. Although political scientists have long recognized that our government more accurately features "shared" powers (as opposed to truly "separated" powers), the fact of the matter is that each branch has its unassailable weapon in the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court has judicial review. Congress has the spending power. The president has the pardon power. For centuries, pardons have made up for the lack of flexibility in laws, anticipating - long before Congress - such considerations as reformation and rehabilitation, the juvenile status of offenders, the possibility of insanity, the considerable costs of incarceration, degrees of guilt in relation to murder, etc. Of course, pardons have also been used to blunt the impact of imperfect decision making in the judicial branch. To be sure, Conservative Presidents - for whatever reason - can neglect this power. But they do so at a cost to our political system and in direct contradiction to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Reason 4: Conservatives have long recognized the importance of incentives, even in the arena of crime and criminal justice. But the public (and, evidently, most in the news media) doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that the typical (as in well over 95 percent) recipient of a presidential (or gubernatorial) pardon, today (and for the last several decades), is someone who has already served their time (if there was any time to serve), has taken care of all associated fines and penalties, and has integrated back into the community as a law-abiding citizen. That is to say, presidential pardons are not springing hardened professional gangland criminals from our prisons and tossing them into the streets, or overturning the judgement of judges and juries. The impact of pardons is to simply restore the civil rights of applicants. The pardon allows them to vote again, serve on a jury, run for public office, own a hunting rifle, etc. The problem is, today, the typical presidential pardon is also granted more than two decades after the offense, when the applicant is probably in his/her 60's or 70's. This, in itself, prompts many to ask, "Why bother? Why does a person even want a pardon?" It is clear that presidential pardons, if granted on a more regular basis, and in a more relevant manner, could provide powerful incentives for hopeful recipients to demonstrate just the kind of reform Conservatives (and every American) should desire.

Reason 5: "Controversial" acts of clemency get the lion's share of attention from the news media, and reasonably so. But this kind of attention invariably warps the public's general perception of pardons and, to some extent, the perceptions of politicians (who tend to view pardons as huge political risks requiring some grand expenditure of political capital). But Conservatives should give a long hard look at recent pardon "controversies." Yes, Democratic presidents have dropped some stink bombs along the way. But, on the Republican side, there is Richard Nixon, the Iran-Contra figures, Scooter Libby, etc. These pardons have all had a distinct "political" feel to them. Indeed, along the way, Republicans frequently expressed concern that Democrats were hunting for "show trials" and "criminalizing" policy differences. If there is even the slightest element of truth to these claims, we must seriously ask: Where would this country be, today, without the pardon power?

Reason 6: Conservatives and Liberals may differ as to the effectiveness of the War on Drugs, but no one doubts that it has failed to accomplish all that was hoped for and that it is very costly. Recently, Democrats and Republicans rolled back the 100 to 1 disparity in crack cocaine sentencing, reducing the ratio to 18 to 1. While the criminal justice system is likely to be more fair, as a result, even the most basic notions of justice (Conservative or Liberal) demand that we now consider the circumstances of those who were convicted under the previous legislation (almost 30,000 inmates). Congress has probably done all that it is going to do in this matter. It is the president who should now consider the careful, systematic use of the pardon power (or, more specifically, commutations of sentence) in individual cases - at a minimum - for first time, non-violent offenders who have already served considerable sentences and show evidence of rehabilitation (just as an example). In addition to approximating fairness, such use of the pardon power could save tax payers millions of dollars.

Reason 7: In recent years, some Conservatives have rethought their position on the death penalty. On the surface, it does seem quite odd that an ideology which seems to instinctively distrust the government would express such enthusiastic support for a process like capital punishment. Conservatives loath the growth of government and the expansion of its power. Catch phrases like "the nanny state" and "over-criminalization" are often employed by Conservative columnists. Or, in the very words of Right on Crime:
Thousands of harmless activities are now classified as crimes in the United States. These are not typical common law crimes such as murder, rape, or theft. Instead they encompass a series of business activities such as importing orchids without the proper paperwork, shipping lobster tails in plastic bags, and even failing to return a library book. There are over 4,000 existing federal criminal laws. (The exact number of laws is unknown because the attorneys at Congressional Research Service who were assigned to count them ran out of resources before they could complete the herculean task.)

In addition to the profusion of federal statutory crimes, there are additional state crimes (Texas alone has over 1,700), and federal regulatory offenses (approximately 300,000). The creation of these often unknowable and redundant crimes, the federalization of certain crimes traditionally prosecuted at the state level, and the removal of traditional mens rea requirements all contribute to a relentless trend known as overcriminalization.
Message to Conservatives: When George Washington worried that the government's charges of treason against the Whiskey Rebels were too Draconian, he pardoned them. When Thomas Jefferson thought the Alien Sedition Acts went too far, he promised, if elected, to pardon those who were convicted. As soon as he became president he pardoned the last individuals who were still being held for writing bad things about John Adams. When Woodrow Wilson had his veto of the Volstead Act overridden, he set records for pardons of individuals who violated drug and alcohol laws. When John F. Kennedy thought mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders were too harsh, he granted pardons accordingly. Jimmy Carter promised a blanket amnesty for Vietnam draft offenders and delivered. It is quite obvious that, if Conservative presidents (and governors) ever decide to get serious about addressing the problems associated with government overreach, the pardon power is there, waiting.

Reason 8: Since the "law and order" campaigns of Richard Nixon, Conservatives have placed every seemingly "soft on crime" politician on the radar. When crime was among the highest concerns of Americans in Gallup polls (the 1960s and 1970s), it was clearly a strategy that worked, at many levels. Would Conservative presidents be going "soft" on crime if they granted pardons - as most presidents have throughout history - frequently, and on a regular basis throughout, the calendar year? There is certainly no doubt that someone, somewhere will make the accusation, especially if a single pardon recipient (out of no matter how many hundreds, or thousands) commits an additional offense. On the other hand, if pardons are granted more frequently, and on a regular basis, the American public (and the media) will quickly learn what has largely been forgotten: again, the typical pardon does not spring anyone from prison. It simply restores rights. An additional benefit of a more regular use of the pardon power is that pardons granted to the president's friends, fellow partisans and political supporters (all of which deserve justice and fair consideration as much as anyone else) will appear less significant. In general, the fewer pardons granted, the more obnoxious such pardons will appear (rightly or wrongly).

Should Conservatives take the lead on this matter? Should they take the risk, when it is much easier to simply do nothing? For the sake of the purity of our political system, in order to benefit from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, in order to pursue justice and economic efficiency in the criminal justice system and in order to better articulate concerns with / and combat the ever invasive expansion of government ... the answer is clearly "yes."

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Significance of the Lardner Warrant

In a previous post, we noted:
... Lardner also reveals, for the first time, information which is the by-product of the effort that he is making to complete a book on the history of pardons in the United States. Namely. Lardner reveals that he has discovered a clemency warrant (hereafter referred to as the "Lardner warrant") that was signed by George Washington much earlier than the first officially recorded clemency warrant by the State Department (April 15, 1794, to one David Blair). By State Department records, Washington waited 1,511 days before granting the first pardon. The Lardner warrant, however, was signed on February 28, 1791, only 669 days into the administration. We will discuss the ramifications of this finding elsewhere.
Here is the place for such explanation:

From a political science standpoint, from at least the work of W.H. Humbert (1941), the benchmark for the first presidential pardon has been April 15, 1794. This is, in fact, the date that is written on the first warrant in State Department records (National Archives, Microfilm Set T967). But the Lardner warrant places the first pardon of the administration at the 669th day mark (click on chart to the left, where each benchmark is noted). The discovery of the Lardner warrant means the following:

Sunday, September 12, 2010

600 Days! Obama in Very Rare Air

Today marks the 600th day of the Obama administration. At this point, despite a record number of clemency applications, Obama has yet to grant a single pardon or commutation of sentence. Only three other presidents have waited longer - see chart here. First, there is George Washington, who waited a whopping 1,811 days to grant the first presidential pardon under the new Constitution. Even with a flurry of pardons just as he was leaving office, Washington granted relatively few pardons. It also appears that mercy was not exactly his forte when he commanded the army during the Revolution. * EDITOR: See update on this information here.

In second, is George W. Bush, who waited 699 days before granting the first pardon of his administration. Bush also used the pardon power sparingly, but certainly more so than Washington. The commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence was probably his most controversial act, but the nullification of the pardon of Isaac Toussie raised more than a few eyebrows. Bush also intentionally granted a pardon to one dead person, Charlie Winters, and used the power to intervene in the high profile case of Igancio Ramos and Jose Compean. Generally, it was obvious that clemency was not a high priority for Bush and, as a result, there was considerable (actually downright wild) speculation that the final days of his administration might feature a wild, mind-numbing flurry of controversial pardons.

Bill Clinton, who waited 672 days before granting a pardon, was, of course, partly responsible for public concern about pardons near the end of the Bush administration. Clinton appeared to be headed toward a level of merciless administration the likes of which had not been seen since John Adams. The effect, in part, was to attract considerable attention / criticism to the few pardons that he did grant. But, as the administration ended, Clinton showed his disdain for the Department of Justice (that charged him with perjury) and its rules and regulations by granting pardons to relatives, friends, donors, friends of donors, members of his administration, party leaders, etc. Many had not even applied for clemency. Some argue Clinton's caper did as much damage to the reputation of the pardon power as the media's reaction to Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon.

These (above) are the only presidents who have waited longer than Barack Obama to grant a pardon. Over the last 39 years, 1 out of every 2 presidential pardons has been granted in the month of December. If, however, Obama waits until December to discover the pardon power, he will actually pass Clinton. This would make him 1) the slowest Democratic president in history to pardon and 2) second only to George W. Bush among modern presidents. If history matters, one might expect the Obama administration to end very much in the manner of Bush or Clinton. That is to say, it will end in wild speculation and disappointment or in wild controversy.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Obama Passes 500th Day Mark

The Obama administration is now 508 days old and had yet to grant a single pardon or commutation of sentence. In a matter of days, the administration will pass that of John Adams (1797-1801) in the highest realms of clemency neglect / tardiness and, very soon, will be outranked by only three other presidents: George Washington, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Washington, of course, is an awkward fit for the contest, in general, as he was the Nation's very first president and criminal law was not yet so federalized. So, as it stands, in matters of clemency, the administration that promised Hope and Change is, if anything, going to be remembered as a very disappointing carbon copy of sorry record left by the previous two administrations.

Saturday, May 8, 2010

Thinking Out Loud Re Obama's Clemency Negligence

As of Monday, President Obama will have gone a whopping 475 days without granting a single pardon or commutation of sentence. As a result, only four presidents have ever been slower to exercise the pardon power: George Washington, John Adams, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Our own instinct is to guess that Obama will, in fact, pass Adams (who is quite nearby, at the 536 days mark). So, in our mind, it is really only a matter of whether the President will finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the history books.

Friday, April 2, 2010

Chart: Most Pardons Granted in a Singled Day

Click on chart to enlarge.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Number of Days Till the First Pardon.

President Obama has gone 414 days without granting a single pardon or commutation of sentence. He will soon pass the ever-popular John Adams (Mr. Alien Sedition Acts), and move into 3rd place, among the very slowest in history. Indeed, this seems very likely, if Obama intends to wait until December to act. Then it is simply a matter of whether or not he will be more negligent than Bush or Clinton.

Washington, incidentally, hardly deserves the same level of disappointment. The colonists had had their fill of the King's abuse of the pardon power and the President, under the Articles of Confederation, could pardon no one. Neither the Virginia Plan nor the New Jersey Plan (at the Constitutional Convention) contained a pardon power. The first draft of the Constitution had no such power either, until a single delegate, working as a committee member, scribbled it into the margin. On top of all of that, of course, is the fact that there were relatively few federal laws to violate, and few criminals for Washington to pardon.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

On Presidents, Pirates and Pardons

Presidents have understood the potential foreign policy / international benefits of the pardon power at least since April 25, 1793, when George Washington pardoned one Joseph Ravara out of "sentiments of respect" for the Republic of Geneva. Two hundred sixteen years and a few days later, the mother of Abduhl Wali-i-Musi is calling on President Barack Obama to pardon her teenage son, who is about to be tried for piracy. Notwithstanding the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, it does not appear to be the best time in history to be facing such a charge.

John Adams pardoned the first pirate, George Rice, in May of 1800 (for "the public good"), but, in the catalogue of pardoned pirates, the popularity contest is easily won by Jean LaFitte and the Baratarian Pirates. Researching LaFitte (and his brother) is an excellent exercise in myth, legend, lore and - somewhere in there - fact. There appears to be agreement, however, that he was prone to sea sickness and stayed on shore as much as possible. General Andrew Jackson was appalled that the government would call upon the LaFitte (played by Yule Brenner in The Buccaneer) and Baratarian Pirates to assist in the Battle of New Orleans. But the self-righteous disposition of the future president gave way, soon enough, to expediency and, as a reward, President James Madison granted the Baratarians a general pardon. Unfortunately, Madison's grant was premised upon "sincere penitence" and, well, there was no such thing in the mix. So, it wasn't long before the government went right back to hanging Baratarian Pirates en masse and cannon-blasting their island headquarters.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Context: Amnesties (or Blanket Pardons)

Washington - July 10 1795, Whiskey Insurrectionists
Adams - May 21 1800, Pennsylvania Insurrectionists (Fries Rebellion)
Jefferson - October 15 1807, Military deserters (if surrendered in 4 months)
Madison - February 7 1812, Military deserters (if surrendered in 4 months)
Madison - October 8 1812, Military deserters (if surrendered in 4 months)
Madison - June 14 1814, Military deserters (if surrendered in 4 months)
Madison - February 6 1815, Pirates participating in War of 1812
Jackson - June 12 1830, Military deserters discharged, those confined released
Buchanan - April 6, 1858, Utah uprising
Lincoln - February 14 1862, Political prisoners paroled
Lincoln - March 10 1863, Military deserters restored with only forfeiture of pay
Lincoln - December 8 1863, “Rebellion” participants (with exceptions) subject to oath
Lincoln - February 26 1864, Military deserters sentences mitigated, restored to duty
Lincoln - March 26 1864, Clarification of December 8, 1863, amnesty
Lincoln - March 11 1865, Military deserters (if returned to post in 60 days)
Johnson - May 29 1865, Certain rebels of Confederate States
Johnson - May 4 1866, Clarification of previous amnesty
Johnson - July 3 1866, Military deserters restored with only forfeiture of pay
Johnson - September 7 1867, Confederates (excepting certain officers) subject to oath
Johnson - July 4 1868, Confederates (except those indicted for treason or felony)
Johnson - December 25 1868, Confederates (universal and unconditional)
Harrison - January 4 1893, Mormons practicing polygamy
Cleveland - September 25 1894, Mormons practicing polygamy
T. Roosevelt - July 4 1902, Philippine insurrectionists, subject to oath
Wilson - June 14 1917 5,000, Persons under suspended sentences
Wilson - August 21 1917, Clarification, reaffirmation of June 14 amnesty
Coolidge - December 15 1923, Espionage Act
Coolidge - March 5 1924, Over 100 military deserters. Restoration of citizenship.
F. Roosevelt - December 23 1933, Over 1,500 who violated Espionage or Draft laws.
Truman - December 24 1945, Thousands of ex-convicts serving at least 1 year in war
Truman - December 23 1947, 1,523 draft evaders (recommended by Amnesty Board)
Truman - December 24 1952, Convicts serving armed forces at least 1 year since 1950
Truman - December 24 1952, Military deserters convicted between 1945 and 1950
Ford - September 16 1974, Vietnam draft evaders. Conditioned on public service
Carter - January 21 1977, Vietnam draft evaders. Unconditional pardon

* For additional updating / commentary on this list, contact the Editor of this blog.

blogger templates | Make Money Online