Search

The article explores the historical roots of executive clemency in the U.S. and its connection to the concept of mercy. It highlights the decline of clemency, particularly in capital cases, since the revival of the death penalty in 1976. It argue that this decline is linked to the constitutional regulation of capital punishment but suggest that clemency still plays a vital role in addressing deficiencies in the capital system.

The article highlights the rarity of clemency in the U.S., particularly for "ordinary" felony cases. It proposes a default rule for automatically triggered commutations to address mass imprisonment. It suggests four variations of this rule, ranging from a bold policy of automatically commuting all felony sentences by a certain percentage to more politically palatable options based on completion of sentence milestones or the nature of the offense.

Life without parole (LWOP) sentences are politically popular in the United States because, on their face, they claim to hold prisoners incarcerated until they die, with zero prospect of release via the regularized channel of parole. However, this view is procedurally shortsighted. After parole there is generally another remedial option for lessening or abrogating punishment: executive clemency via pardons and commutations. Increasingly, U.S. legal jurisdictions also provide for the possibility of compassionate release for lifers, usually granted by a parole board. On paper, pardon, commutation, and compassionate release are thus direct challenges to the claim that an LWOP sentence will inevitably and invariably lead to the prisoner's death while incarcerated. Few previous studies, however, have examined the finality of LWOP empirically. In this Article, I present original empirical data on clemency covering the period 1990-2021 in order to investigate the relationship between LWOP sentences and the release mechanisms of executive clemency and compassionate release in both state and federal cases. Ultimately, the results of this research reaffirm the finality of LWOP in the United States, despite the availability, on paper, of at least three potential release procedures. Only a handful of LWOP prisoners have received commutation or pardon from U.S. presidents, state governors, or pardons boards. Compassionate release has been granted almost as rarely. That said, some demographics tend to have benefited more than others. The findings presented within this Article are relevant not only to domestic clemency and end-of-life release policy but also to litigation dealing with a "right to hope" as a component of human dignity, and to the academic debate over LWOP as a global replacement for the death penalty and a form of "extreme" punishment of its own accord. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarship on contemporary US penality has paid little attention to practices opposing the punitive trend. This study explores clemency – official acts moderating punishment and its lasting consequences – as an executive back-end mechanism of leniency. To explore how clemency is discussed at a time of increasingly punitive penal policies, I conducted a qualitative analysis of 36 years' worth of presidential statements on clemency from Reagan to Obama. This study revealed that three central justifications are used to validate clemency decisions: individuals' deservingness, community benefits and justice ideals. Discussions of clemency challenge punitiveness by closing the social distance between individuals with criminal histories and law-abiding society and calling for moderation in punishment and penal reform. However, by using a justificatory tone and mirroring penal rationales, clemency statements are limited in inviting progressive change and at times actively drive and reinforce dominant punitive narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the conditional pardon power of the U.S. president, which is the ability to attach conditions to clemency grants, and its boundaries. Topics discussed include the possibility of an abuse of the power, the notion that the power is underappreciated, the conditional pardon power jurisprudence, and the limitations on the conditional pardon power at common law.

The article discusses the problems caused by mass incarceration in the U.S. and the feasibility of the proposed solutions like executive clemency. Other topics include the focus of criminal justice reform in reducing the prison population, the susceptibility of clemency to judicial review, and the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act.

The clemency power of the U.S. President is limited to pardoning federal offences and expressly excludes federal impeachment from the pardon power. There is no explicit prohibition upon who might be the recipient of a presidential pardon. The U.S. Constitution does not expressly prohibit the President from issuing a self-pardon. If the American Framers placed only the one exception for impeachment, then arguably they meant to exclude all other conceivable exceptions. Yet, the very notion of such presidential self-forgiveness raises arguments criticizing the possibility. Would not a selfpardon place the President above the law? In the process of investigating the various arguments denying and supporting the possibility, the parameters and the goals of issuing and accepting or rejecting a presidential pardon are developed along with alternative methods of achieving the same result as a self-pardon without actually issuing a self-pardon. Hence, the puzzle. The essay's narrow and guarded conclusions are arrived at defeasibly. That is, the essay is driven by the force of the arguments over this paradoxical constitutional dilemma. The essay is intended as the beginning rather than a completion of the inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This multi-method paper presents a model of individual and contextual variation in commutation, a form of clemency that lessens the severity of criminal sentences. In the contemporary US context of high incarceration, commutation is one of few "back-end" mechanisms available for early release. We first describe national trends, showing a significant decline in commutation releases, as well as great geographic variation. We then test whether commutation decisions reflect consistency or compensation with other forms of punishment. Our mixed-effects logit analysis reveals state-level compensation (greater commutation in more punitive states) but individual-level consistency (greater commutation for more advantaged groups). Commutation is most likely for those presenting a "mercy package" of White race, female sex, and less violent criminal histories. In contrast, Black men convicted of violence are exceedingly unlikely to be commuted. Nevertheless, qualitative evidence suggests that the apparent "female advantage" in commutation may reflect differences in the nature of the underlying offense and subsequent prison behavior. These results both parallel and extend sociological research on punishment, pointing to commutation as an understudied and underutilized mechanism for mercy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information about the mercy pleas through the real story of Sharanda Jones who was leader of conspiracy of drug dealing. Topics include reduction in her sentence to 16 years by former American president Barack Obama and of thousand others; clemency power of the U.S. constitution used by the President; and views of author towards development of general analysis of mercy which applied on pardons and lenient sentences.

The article focuses on the ethical argument for funding in clemency and the mercy function and the American Bar Association (ABA) guidelines. Topics include discussion on how the traditional view of the "minimal" rights owed to death-sentenced prisoners in clemency has contributed to the systemic inadequacy of clemency funding today.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of Virginia's determination in the 2016 case Howell v. McAuliffe that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's executive order restoring voting rights en masse to close to 206,000 Virginians is unconstitutional since a Governor's restoration (clemency) power is intended to be utilized on a case-by-case basis. Felon disenfranchisement is addressed, along with writs of mandamus and a petition signed by Virginia state legislator William Howell.

The article discusses the author's call for the U.S. government to make the nation's clemency system more efficient, fair, and effective as of 2017, and it mentions mercy and the Clemency Project 2014 program that was established under then-American President Barack Obama's administration. Pardon attorneys and the U.S. Deputy Attorney General are addressed, along with clemency boards, the late U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, and state clemency systems in South Carolina and Delaware.

An essay is presented that proposes that the U.S. vice president head a federal clemency office. The article discusses the political aspects of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Pardon Attorney and possible conflicts of interest, the clemency power afforded the U.S. president in the U.S. Constitution, and the possibility of a formal clemency board.

The article discusses the author's proposal regarding the revitalization of the U.S. federal clemency process as of 2016, and it mentions an American president's power to grant a criminal offender mercy under Article II of the nation's Constitution. Problems involving the U.S. criminal justice system are examined, along with justice, public policymaking, and a victims' rights movement in America. U.S. President Barack Obama's Clemency Project 2014 is assessed, as well as criminal sentencing.

The article examines the need of reform in laws related to pardon in the U.S. Topics discussed include Federal law enforcement and prosecution in the U.S.; prosecutorial and police powers; the presidential powers to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the country; and differences between the pardon power and other forms of clemency.

The article discusses various aspects of capital punishment (CP) and executive clemency procedures in America as of 2016, and it mentions criticism directed at American governors and decisions to grant or deny clemency requests from prisoners, as well as U.S. federal and state government constitutional CP sentencing requirements. Several American CP cases are examined, including Gregg v. Georgia, Woodson v. North Carolina, and McGautha v. California. Protections for innocent people are assessed.

Plea bargaining accounts for over ninety percent of criminal convictions and it dominates the American criminal justice system. Yet, once a defendant is convicted, bargaining almost completely disappears from the system. Even though years of litigation are on the horizon, there is nearly no bargaining in the appellate and habeas corpus process. There are two reasons for this. First, prosecutors and courts typically lack the power to alter a sentence that has already been imposed. Second, even if prosecutors had the authority to negotiate following a conviction, they would have little incentive to do so. Affirmance rates in ordinary criminal cases approach ninety-five percent in many jurisdictions. Because the government has little incentive to bargain, defendants slowly churn their way through the formal appellate and habeas process. The lack of post-trial bargaining makes perfect sense in ordinary criminal cases. It does not make as much sense in death-penalty cases, however. Death sentences are followed by decades of litigation. And, more importantly, challenges to death sentences are often successful. Capital cases are reversed at alarming rates, and re-trials typically follow the reversals. Faced with years of appellate litigation that it might not win, and the prospect of a re-trial and another slew of appeals, the State should have an incentive to bargain in its weakest cases. And the convicted individual-faced with a death sentence-likely has an even stronger incentive to bargain. This Article argues that governors should not simply think about clemency as a tool to prevent morally questionable executions. Rather, governors should regularly exercise their commutation power as a form of plea bargaining to clear weak cases out of the system. In exchange for inmates foregoing further appeals, governors could commute death sentences to terms of imprisonment. Clemency bargaining fits squarely within governors’ unreviewable commutation power and would save tens of millions of dollars by ending decades of unruly litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of clemency to address mass incarceration in the U.S. Topics covered include an overview of the clemency initiative by U.S. President Barack Obama, the potential of the clemency initiative to address mass incarceration in the short term, and the long term efficacy of the clemency initiative. The restraints that limit the exercise of the clemency power of the president are also mentioned.

On February 9, 2014, the New York Times editorial board described the Obama administration as 'one of the least merciful ... in modern history.' Over the past year and a half, President Barack Obama has shown renewed interest in clemency. However, as of July 13, 2015, real reform remains elusive: Obama has granted less than 1% of pardon and commutation requests. Is anything likely to change in the remaining months of the Obama administration? In this article, I look for hints of Obama's plans by considering his clemency record in detail, paying particular attention to the types of offenses that have been deemed worthy of clemency and those that have not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critics argue that the American criminal justice system is rife with "ugly disproportionalities" and "brutal penalties on the undeserving." One particularly brutal punishment is the sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The punishment, conceived decades ago as a substitute for the death penalty, scarcely exists in the rest of the world. Today, while capital punishment wanes in the United States, steadily increasing numbers of defendants are sentenced to LWOP. Furthermore, according to a recent ACLU Report, over 3,000 of the 50,000 inmates serving LWOP were convicted of nonviolent offenses. There is no uglier disproportionality than a defendant, guilty of a minor crime, banished to prison for the remainder of his life. This Article questions this narrative and therewith the contemporary wisdom as to the brutality of American criminal justice, at least in its imposition of LWOP sentences. The author conducted a detailed study of every inmate sentenced to LWOP in eight states. In a few states, it is impossible to find a single inmate sentenced to LWOP for any crime other than murder or the most serious violent crimes. Even in jurisdictions that impose LWOP for crimes labeled "nonviolent," the inmates are few in number and often present aggravating factors, such as extensive criminal histories or previous violent crimes. Inevitably, criminals sentenced to LWOP will vary in culpability, and some will appear not to merit this punishment. Drawing attention to their plight can spur executive clemency in individual cases. But accusations that the American legal system is rife with "ugly disproportionalities," at least insofar as this claim is applied to LWOP sentences in the states, appear to have little merit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While America's appetite for capital punishment continues to wane over time, clemency for death row inmates is all but extinct. Moreover, what little clemency activity that persists continues to distribute unevenly across gender, racial and ethnic groups, geography, governors ' political affiliation, and over time. Insofar as courts appear extremely reluctant to review--let alone interfere with--clemency activity, little, if any, formal legal recourse exists. Results from this study of clemency activity on state death tows (1973--2010) suggest that potential problems arise, however, to the extent that our criminal justice system relies on clemency to function as a coherent extrajudicial check. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal aspects of wrongful convictions in America in relation to errors involving criminal judgments, and it mentions problems involving forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and false confessions. Exoneration and ineffective assistance of counsel are addressed, along with the U.S. criminal justice system and the legal remedy of clemency. DNA analysis, appellate judges in America, and the legal rights of wrongly-convicted individuals are also examined.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses several articles within the journal on topics including the victims' rights in the executive clemency process, the development of the U.S. military justice system and cyber victimization.

The article presents a discussion of pardon power of executive branch and its impact on crime victims' rights which highlights the Supreme Court's decision to the executive clemency imposed by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour to individuals convicted of violent crimes in January 2012. Topics mentioned include the competing theoretical foundations of pardon practice, the victims' rights movement and integration of victim interest to pardon practice.

The article offers information on the military clemency and parole process and programs administered by the Department of Defense (DoD) under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It informs that the U.S. Air Force Clemency and Parole Board assists the Secretary of the Air Force in executing clemency, parole, transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It analyzes the role of the Army Clemency Boards in execution of the court-martial sentencing of military personnel.

The article focuses on sentencing disparity in the military justice system. Topics discussed include a single sentence assessed by courts-martial for the charges of which an accused found guilty, a single unitary sentence imposed by the military for all convicted charges, and the transparency of the military justice system. It also mentions the impact of changes in the form of the military sentence on panel sentencing, appeal rights, and clemency.

The author offers his thoughts on how changing incentives with a focus on increasing the marginal costs of incarceration to counties can be applied to bolster the reforms suggested by author Michael Tonry. Topics include prison admission rates that rely on the criminal justice status of the offender, pardons and clemencies implemented in Italy since the end of World War II, and the impact of tougher sentences for drug criminals on U.S. incarceration rate.

This Article reviews every capital clemency over the last four decades. It demonstrates that in the majority of cases, the reason for commutation was known at the conclusion of direct appeals--years or even decades before the habeas process ended. Yet when governors or pardon boards actually commuted the death sentences, they typically waited until the eve of execution, with only days or hours to spare. Leaving clemency until the last minute sometimes leads to many years of unnecessary state and federal habeas corpus litigation, and this Article documents nearly 300 years of wasted habeas corpus review. Additionally, last-minute commutations harm the victims' families by delaying closure for years. And reserving clemency determinations for the very end of the process creates an information cascade that makes it harder for governors to grant clemency in meritorious cases. This Article therefore argues for a threshold clemency determination in capital cases at the conclusion of direct review, before any state or federal habeas litigation has begun. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study on the impact of regulatory law and policy on criminal law in the U.S., with regards to whether they can improve criminal law. It explores the criminal justice system as a regulatory system and how clemency can make it more effective and just. It also examines the decision of several states in the 1980s to allow prisoners to visit their families and perform community service to determine whether they deserve clemency.