Search

The article focuses on the recent reforms to Minnesota's clemency laws, which aim to improve the efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness of the pardon and commutation process. It highlights significant changes such as the establishment of a Clemency Review Commission, the removal of the unanimous vote requirement, increased meeting frequency, and automatic expungement of pardoned records.

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.

The article examines the relationship between mercy and discrimination within the criminal justice system, particularly in light of efforts to address racial bias. It critiques the common approach of limiting leniency to prevent disparities, arguing that this undervalues the importance of mercy and fails to achieve equality. It suggests alternative strategies, such as clemency and compassionate release as more effective means of reducing racial disparities while preserving the role of leniency.

For persons serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences in California, a commutation usually offers them the sole glimpse of hope for release from prison. While governors were reluctant to consider any sentence reductions from 1975 to 2016, commutations—including those for LWOP—have become a more frequent occurrence since. Yet, little is still known about how governors have justified reducing a sentence that initially offered no prospect of release from prison. Given the apparent change in practice, themes emerging from the content of 177 gubernatorial commutation summaries granted to persons serving LWOP sentences between 2017 and 2021 are analyzed in this paper. Through open coding, rehabilitative indicators (programming and institutional conduct) emerged as necessary preconditions for a commutation, while retributive factors (a reassessment of the nature of the crime and the prerogative to adjust excessive prison sentences or to correct sentencing errors) complemented sentence reductions. The findings expose the ethical issues that arise from an LWOP sentence and the subsequent commutation. More specifically, they shed light on the commitment offenses underlying commuted LWOP sentences and raise questions regarding the penal objectives that are supposed to be accomplished with permanent imprisonment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Minnesota Board of Pardons and its renewed consideration of reprieves as a form of clemency following legislative changes in 2023. Topics include the historical context of clemency law in Minnesota, the nature of reprieves in the state and nationally, and the recent legislative reforms that have expanded the Board's authority regarding clemency options like reprieves.

The Underworld imagery developed by Lucan (BC 6.507–830), Statius (Th. 4.345–645), Valerius Flaccus (Arg. 1.827–50), and Silius Italicus (Pun. 2 and 13) to reprove Rome's power-hungry leaders, accused of the death of thousands in civil war battles, excited the imagination of Christian writers such as Lactantius, Ausonius, Jerome, and the Spanish Presbyter Iuvencus. The article explores the investment of this imagery with the Stoic notion of excess (luxury) and its impact on defining the Christian concept of sin as received and further developed by Dante and Boccaccio. So far, scholarly discussion has tended to focus on the Homeric overcoat of pietas and its opposite furor , which under the influence of Posidonius (135–51 BCE), came to be associated with traditional Roman virtues. Instead, I here focus on Erictho (Lucan) and Tisiphone (Statius) as symbols of sinful temptation and effeminizing excess (luxury), typically gripping its victims through the eyes. In response to these infernal female figures, Dante and Boccaccio attributed epic proportions to ethical life, turning it into a canvas on which they debated the Christian moral code of their times. The gendered principles underpinning sinful excess in both pagan and Christian authors are discussed, alongside the role of poetry in counter-proposing the figures of Piety and Clemency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Homicides with corpse dismemberment are rare, but they usually receive significant attention. Covering up or attempting to kill a person with dismemberment does not carry a heavier penalty under criminal law, but it is extremely shocking to the public. This type of social pressure can also affect the work of the police and law enforcement agencies. This statement is generally valid, regardless of age. The presented extremely serious murder case that happened in Hungary during the Kádár regime is also unique from the point of view of history, criminology, forensic science, and criminal law. The perpetrator was an extremely manipulative woman with a difficult life situation, who actively participated in the killing and dismemberment of two family members and then helped the investigation and the death penalty imposed on her with her own confession. Finally, she was able to apply for a pardon, which in the case of women on death row during this period was judged favourably under certain conditions. What were the chances of a mother of several children who was sentenced to death when there was a precedent that a death sentence was carried out “only” for the crime of attempted murder? How would the first murder have been revealed if the second had not happened? I will present the criminal case of Mihályné Karsai, who first murdered one of her sons with the help of her husband, and several years later she murdered her husband together with her another son. The case is presented using two types of sources, one of which are the case documents that can still be accessed, as well as the forensic studies related to the crime that has been repeatedly cited.

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]

The incorporation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into Taiwan's domestic law provided death row inmates with the legal basis to submit requests for the President's mercy. However, Presidents have persistently ignored these requests without any response to the inmates, and the judiciary regularly dismissed the cases Of the inmates by rendering decisions in support ofthe Presidents' inaction. The court justifications for these decisions were that the clemency power falls under the executive prerogative, and that it is a political question in nature and therefore not subject to judicial oversight This Article argues against these justifications. Firstly, the presidential clemency power is constrained by the principle oflegality and due process in government decision-making. As such, the President is obligated to respond to the requests according to relevant laws and due process requirements. Secondly, the presidential clemency power does not meet the criterion for the political question doctrine in Taiwan. In the United States-the country from which Taiwan borrows the political question doctrine-the pardoning power is subject to judicial review and not treated as purely a political question free of any oversight. Additionally, under the right to an effective remedy, preserved in Article 2 (3) Of the Covenant, Taiwan's judiciary must adjudicate on cases brought by inmates on the merits, as their right to seek capital clemency would otherwise be violated. In viewing the presidential clemency power through the lenses this Article discusses, the power would no longer be a prerogative without limitations; instead, it would be a power exerted under the framework Of human rights law with the checks and balances Of the legislature and the judiciary. [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]

In most nations that still execute prisoners--including the U.S.--it is illegal to execute a pregnant person. In English common law, women have been permitted to "plead the belly" in one form or another since the 14th century, and this fact is sometimes misconstrued by anti-choice and forced-birth advocates as evidence of a long legal tradition of protection for the lives of fetuses. In fact, it is merely evidence of a long history of legal inconsistencies in the ways laws were applied and sentences carried out against women, for whom there were fewer options for clemency than for men. This brief discussion tries to introduce some nuance into historical understanding of pregnancy by looking into belly pleas; its chief case study is the infamous case of Anne Bonny and Mary Read, who did actually plead the belly following being convicted for piracy, but whose actual pregnancies, I contend, have never been established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes U.S. President Joe Biden' prerogative over clemency for favored constituents in the prisoner swap between Brittney Griner, an American citizen and member of the Women's National Basketball Association, and international criminal arms merchant Victor Bout of Russia. Topics discussed include reasonableness and legitimacy of the exercise of the president's commutation power, Article II Pardon Clause authority of the president, and cost and benefits of the prisoner swap.

Despite the great esteem for forgiveness in the modern world, recent historical studies have cast doubt on the existence of the practice or even the concept of interpersonal forgiveness in the Greco-Roman world. Classical scholars have noted the prevalence of vengeance in the popular and literary imagination, the scarcity of apology, the subordination of clemency to political power, and the philosophical opposition to forgiveness. The Latin bishop Augustine of Hippo (354–430) surprisingly agreed with this assessment. Augustine, his contemporary Roman critics, and even his congregation understood the church as advocating—even discovering—a novel, difficult practice: unconditional forgiveness. Though Augustine offers no singular treatment of forgiveness, his letters and sermons bear witness to a clearly developed and articulated position: that forgiveness must be preveniently, unconditionally offered but is still necessarily oriented toward the just reform of the offender. Augustine particularly highlights the example of Christ's forgiveness and its union with prayer. Augustine interprets the scandal of unconditional forgiveness in reference to the even greater scandal of love of enemies, which seeks the true good of offenders in accord with justice, rather than satisfaction through a belittling vengeance. Thus, Augustine's view of forgiveness can be best grasped by distinguishing between the offer of forgiveness— forgiving —and the reception of forgiveness— being forgiven. Forgiving is unconditional, but being forgiven occurs through just reform. In this way, the complete arc of forgiveness incorporates both prevenient mercy and justice. In addition to illuminating the place of late antique Christianity in the history of forgiveness, this article shows that Augustine presents a robust account of unconditional forgiveness that is not a passive resignation but rather intrinsic to true justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A president's long-recognized discretion to pardon just about any offense for literally any reason at almost any time leaves little room to argue that such power can be constrained any further by law. Supreme Court decisions, scholarship, and presidential precedent over the last two centuries amply (though grudgingly) support a theory of nearly unilateral and "unfettered" authority, perhaps a last vestige of the British monarchy left in the hands of a democratically accountable chief executive-controversial, but nevertheless constitutional. But when it comes to a specific class of misconduct-war crimes-interpreting and applying this constitutional power requires a second look, for it invariably intersects with another Article II power-a president's role and authority as the military's commander-in-chief Rather than amplifying this other long-recognized discretionary power to wage war, the pardon power arguably weakens it under certain conditions. This intersection is not merely an academic puzzle on the nature of presidential power: it is a collision of a president's right with a series of quite specific presidential responsibilities and authorities over the military's criminal justice system that he has only because Congress believes that a commander-in-chief should wield them. The collateral damage .from this collision ironically harms the very institution and profession the President relies on for military action, advice, and ability. Whether this damage is historically contingent on particular presidents or is a predictable consequence of all such pardons is a question that cannot be answered yet. That is because President Trump's three war crime pardons in 2019 were historic first : Never before had a president pardoned any soldier for conduct incidental to combat action that violently victimized a noncombatant who was otherwise protected by the international laws of war from unlawful armed force. They were a proof of concept that a president could indeed go there : but they were also a proof of consequences not yet fully explored in the literature and not at all by the courts. In exercising his singular strength by pardoning war crimes, a president's power and credibility is paradoxically weakened for three reasons: He ignores or rejects the duties imposed on the very institution he relies on to achieve political objectives through armed force; head values the professional expertise of his military agents: and he delegitimizes the military criminal justice system that this institution relies on to promote, enforce, and signal its professional commitments to certain martial values, norms, and requirements-including adhering to the laws of war. Flexing muscle on one arm atrophies muscle on the other. The contrary view is that constitutionally required civilian control of the armed forces means he has discretion to flex or atrophy his credibility with the military whenever he wants. Trump's war crime pardons offer an opportunity to explore whether common arguments and conventional applications of the pardon power are entirely relevant to this class of offenses and this kind of offender. This Article suggests, because they lead to a self-defeating paradox (the collision between two independent and stout, express Article II powers), that they are categorically distinct. This Article sketches this new prudential argument for curtailing war crime pardons based on a president's "standing" or relationship he necessarily bears to the military as its commander-in-chief and to the conduct he absolves. Any .future case for judicially invalidating such a pardon for legislating a containment strategy to (at least) deter such a pardon, or for adopting a set of principles for presidential self-restraint, must account.for this challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 'years of lead' commonly refer in Italy to the decade of the 1970s, characterized by widespread conflictuality, the use of violence for political aims and harsh state repression of political activism. Political violence has been primarily handled with both normal and exceptional means of criminal justice, yet debates on amnesty and reconciliation have been recurrent over the years. This article traces the history of the debates on amnesty and pardon for politically motivated offences to show how they have been shaped by changing national and international contexts. On the one hand, the 'failed amnesty' reflects the long-lasting repressive approach adopted by the Italian state to address the question of the political violence in the 1970s and the reluctance to acknowledge its collective and political character. On the other hand, this article argues that, beyond the apparent continuity of a punitive approach, the gradual disappearance of amnesty from political debates in the 1990s–2000s is symptomatic of a more paradigmatic shift resulting from the combination of different factors and trends, such as the transformation of the Italian political landscape in the early 1990s, the emergence and affirmation of a new punitive discourse, as well as the increasing delegitimation of amnesties in transitional settings. Thus, through a specific case-study, this article draws links between criminal justice and penal trends, political transformations and developments in transitional justice, and consequently intends to contribute to the discussion of the concept of punitiveness and the effects of the expanding international criminal law on the treatment of politically motivated offences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Private damage claims against cartels may have negative effects on leniency: whereas whistleblowers obtain full immunity regarding the public cartel fines, they have no or only restricted protection against private third-party damage claims. This may stabilize cartels. We run an experiment to study this issue. Firms choose whether to join a cartel, may apply for leniency afterward, and then potentially face private damages. We find that the implementation of private damage claims reduces cartel formation but makes cartels indeed more stable. The negative effect of damages is avoided in a novel setting where the whistleblower is also protected from damages (JEL C90, L41, L44). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Rónai - Revista de Estudos Classicos e Tradutorios is the property of Ronai - Revista de Estudos Classicos e Tradutorios and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Classica: Revista Brasileira de Estudos Clássicos is the property of Sociedade Brasileira de Estudos Classicos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The legal texts of the Byzantine period contain elements that clearly portray the role and duties of the emperor as ruler of the State. Leo VI the Wise (886–912 AD), famous for his abundant legislative and general legal work, promulgated numerous general laws (novels). His novels promote certain “ideals”, especially equality, justice, charity and clemency, along with other principles of Christian ethics. The emperor is illustrated as a ruler who has a close relationship with God, theologizes, and philosophizes at the same time. In parallel, the emperor infiltrates the mentality of his subjects as the one responsible for the people on earth, their tireless defender, and lawmaker. Furthermore, Leo appears to consistently try to accurately determine the most appropriate, prudent, and fair solution to each problem after meticulous study. He is a philanthropist, a lenient ruler and a supporter of equality and moderation. He acts as a protector of social institutions and regulates his subjects’ lives so that they can become more well-behaved and prefer only the useful things in life. Finally, in Leo’s novels the emperor is depicted not only as the person chosen by God to rule the Empire, but also as the true embodiment of justice, dignity and divine piety.

The main objective of this work is to think about the imperial policy proposed by Seneca having as horizon the relationship of complementarity established by two texts of the author: De Clementia and De Ira. In these texts, as we intend to demonstrate, there is a clear concern to ensure ethical principles capable of justifying virtuous behavior, both for those who want to achieve the good life and for those who want to establish themselves as a just ruler - princeps. In both texts, as we will see, there is a succession of political examples that are exalted in an attempt to advise the ruler, whether thinking about Claudius, with De Ira, or Nero, in the case of De Clementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Was President Donald J. Trump's use of the clemency power extraordinary or just ordinary? Does his record of pardons and commutations suggest that extensive reforms are needed? In this article, I take a close look at Trump's clemency record and the questions raised by his actions. I conclude by considering whether any aspects of the clemency power's review process require revision in the wake of the Trump administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few historians have interrogated the nature of empire through the perspectives of the labouring majority. Reviewing recent debates in imperial history, this article tests whether the British Empire in the early nineteenth century can be considered a coherent state by examining how plebeians in Britain and New South Wales were, and believed themselves to be, subjects within the same empire. Using petitions for clemency, it contends that the labouring classes interacted with, fostered and understood shared imperial structures. Thinking the empire poor reveals that the British Empire was a coherent imperial state consisting of geographically heterogenous locations united by shared institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do governments severely punish some dissidents while showing mercy to others? This study argues that when constrained by limited information on dissent, states have incentives to cast the net of repression wider by executing not just key dissent actors but also members closely connected to them to ensure demobilization. States also crave information, and granting clemency to defectors who bring in information improves state intelligence. Given that tips have different values, regimes will grant clemency to defectors who are closely connected to key dissent actors and possess high-value tips, allowing the state to pursue top fugitives and dissolve resistance more efficiently. Using newly declassified data on political victims during Taiwan's White Terror authoritarian period, I find that the regime tends to execute both key actors (i.e., leaders and recruiters) and their closely connected members. Defectors who share information tend to receive mercy, but defectors closely connected to key actors are much less likely to face execution than less connected defectors. These findings shed new insight into the toolkit dictators use to gather intelligence on dissent and how strategic clemency induces defection and betrayal among dissidents, helping destroy dissent networks from within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presidential or executive power of pardoning convicted offenders is, generally speaking, beyond ordinary checks and balances. It could arguably be one of the most controversial of executive powers prone to abuse by the political elite. To the extent that the power sanctions the circumvention of the justice system by undoing, sidestepping, and interfering with some judicial outcomes, its appropriateness has been questioned as being possibly a serious indictment on the separation of powers and the rule of law. This contribution focuses on the use of the presidential power of clemency in Zambia as a reflective case study. It addresses some of the legitimate questions that arise from a legal and constitutional standpoint in the use of this power. The paper argues that the danger that is posed to the independence of the judiciary by the power of pardon does not derive from the mere existence of the prerogative of mercy powers, but rather from collateral factors such as the apparent failure to understand the extent to which pardoned convicts lose their rights, rather than gain them; the apparent failure to appreciate the justice protective function of the power of pardon itself; and the absence of inbuilt trigger mechanisms in the law to monitor possible abuse of the power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective/Context: This article analyzes the nature and operation of bail releases for political prisoners during the War of the Thousand Days (Colombia, 1899-1902), as well as the uses that both detainees and authorities made of them. Methodology: The study reviews material from the Central Archive of Cauca in Popayán and the Historical Archive of Medellín, in order to carry out a quantitative and qualitative analysis of records of political bails from both cities, accompanied by a review of petitions and administrative resolutions associated with such resources. Originality: The article explores a little-studied political-legal mechanism in the context of Colombian civil wars in the nineteenth century: bails or judicial bonds. Additionally, it contributes to the study of a topic that has only recently attracted the attention of historians: treatment of the political opponent through the administration of clemency. Conclusions: Although they represented a way to obtain state clemency, these bails also provided the government with a mechanism to reinforce the submission of dissenters and to produce politically and militarily harmless opponents. Its operation, in fact, was permanently permeated with simultaneous logics of grace, prevention, and punishment.

This article explores executive clemency in death penalty cases in China, Taiwan and Japan. All three neighbouring legal jurisdictions are notable for frequently passing death sentences and executing prisoners over the past several decades without the executive branch of government granting individualised pardon or commutation to any death row prisoner since at least 1975, if not earlier. This highly unusual feature of all three nations' death penalty practice suggests a policy puzzle. The authors' case study comparison of these three East Asian jurisdictions reveals two common explanatory features. First is the availability of alternative post-appellate procedures to mitigate punishment in cases undeserving of death, and to limit execution totals for policy reasons. Second is the inability of condemned prisoners to directly access the ultimate clemency decision-maker by petition, unlike in most death penalty retentionist jurisdictions. The authors conclude by making several policy recommendations on this basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]