Thursday, January 22, 2009
Political Mayhem Thursday: Pardons and Commutations
The last days of the Bush presidency were absent one of the things we have come to expect at such times-- a bunch of pardons and commutations. [For the non-lawyers out there, pardons and commutations are Constitutional powers of the President. A pardon is when the President, unilaterally, erases someone's criminal conviction. A commutation is when the President leaves the conviction in place but wipes out the criminal sentence.]
President Bush used this power in only two cases in his last week-- he commuted the sentences of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were serving long prison terms for shooting a fleeing illegal alien whom they suspected of trafficking marijuana.
Historically, I have not been a fan of these last-minute deals, and the Marc Rich pardon by President Clinton made me positively livid. However, that does not mean I am against the use of pardons and commutations. To the contrary, I think they are an essential part of the Constitution's checks and balances, in that they allow the executive to control unreasonable sentences which result from the legislature's sometimes too-harsh laws and/or the decisions of the judiciary. Rather than jamming them all up at the end of a term, though, a President should make them in a well-reasoned and principled manner throughout their term.
Right now, the Obama administration should consider such a wave of commutations for those defendants who are serving unreasonably long sentences for crack-trafficking offenses. These sentences are unreasonable compared to the sentences received by powder-cocaine traffickers, who often are more culpable (after all, crack is made from powder, and thus necessarily ends up in the hands of people at the end of the chain of transfer).
A few questions for the rest of you:
1) Did Ramos and Compean deserve commutations?
2) What about Scooter Libby (who received one earlier)?
3) How should pardons and commutations be used?
President Bush used this power in only two cases in his last week-- he commuted the sentences of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were serving long prison terms for shooting a fleeing illegal alien whom they suspected of trafficking marijuana.
Historically, I have not been a fan of these last-minute deals, and the Marc Rich pardon by President Clinton made me positively livid. However, that does not mean I am against the use of pardons and commutations. To the contrary, I think they are an essential part of the Constitution's checks and balances, in that they allow the executive to control unreasonable sentences which result from the legislature's sometimes too-harsh laws and/or the decisions of the judiciary. Rather than jamming them all up at the end of a term, though, a President should make them in a well-reasoned and principled manner throughout their term.
Right now, the Obama administration should consider such a wave of commutations for those defendants who are serving unreasonably long sentences for crack-trafficking offenses. These sentences are unreasonable compared to the sentences received by powder-cocaine traffickers, who often are more culpable (after all, crack is made from powder, and thus necessarily ends up in the hands of people at the end of the chain of transfer).
A few questions for the rest of you:
1) Did Ramos and Compean deserve commutations?
2) What about Scooter Libby (who received one earlier)?
3) How should pardons and commutations be used?
Comments:
<< Home
It's interesting to me that a man who has been so vehemently accused of "crony-ism" (sp?) took a complete pass on what has come to be the traditional final handout to political and personal friends. Perhaps he isn't the smoke-filled room coniver we've been told he is.
# posted by 
: 7:27 AM
: 7:27 AM
Pardons, schmardons-- Michelle's dress was beautiful! I loved that color. Laura Bush was always so drab.
# posted by : 11:13 AM
: 11:13 AM
I have not done any research on the topic, though I do know that the Drafters of the Constitution gave the President certain "Monarchial" powers, like the power of Pardon. Kings had this power because Justice was usually not fair and often quite random in the 18th Century and certainly before that time.
Our legal system has many flaws, but its certainly "fairer" than in was in the 1780's and the need for Pardons has probably declined.
There are certainly still many travesties out there, but there are ways to address them.
I do agree with the notion that they should be done throughout the Presidential term, not just all at the end.
Our legal system has many flaws, but its certainly "fairer" than in was in the 1780's and the need for Pardons has probably declined.
There are certainly still many travesties out there, but there are ways to address them.
I do agree with the notion that they should be done throughout the Presidential term, not just all at the end.
# posted by : 11:44 AM
: 11:44 AM
Yes, Anon. 6:27, I think George W just doesn't believe in pardons. He seems pretty black-and-white where sentences are concerned. Anybody who can preside over something like 150 executions (am I exaggerating? Not much I don't think) would not be too likely to give out pardons for lesser offenses, it seems to me.
I agree with Osler that pardons should be used in a principled way during a president's, or governor's, entire administration. But it's much harder to do it that way, when you've still got a couple years left in office and you've got to face the criticism that comes with it. It'd be really tempting to wait until the end, like Clinton did, although I think rushing to grant pardons can result in some bad judgments.
I agree with Osler that pardons should be used in a principled way during a president's, or governor's, entire administration. But it's much harder to do it that way, when you've still got a couple years left in office and you've got to face the criticism that comes with it. It'd be really tempting to wait until the end, like Clinton did, although I think rushing to grant pardons can result in some bad judgments.
# posted by : 11:47 AM
: 11:47 AM
1. Ramos and Compeon didn't deserve pardons or commutations. To do so is to implicitly say that so long as you're "doing your job," you can get away with shooting an unarmed person who's running away from you. It's embarrassing.
2. Scooter Libby's pardon was even worse, especially in light of the fact that the Bush Administration submitted an amicus brief in the Rita case, arguing that a similar sentence was reasonable. At this point, few things done by the Bush administration really surprise me, but the audacity that the Libby pardon took really did catch me off guard.
2. Scooter Libby's pardon was even worse, especially in light of the fact that the Bush Administration submitted an amicus brief in the Rita case, arguing that a similar sentence was reasonable. At this point, few things done by the Bush administration really surprise me, but the audacity that the Libby pardon took really did catch me off guard.
1. I have mixed thoughts on this - mostly because Ramos' and Compean's sentences were mandatory minimums, which are an affront to justice. Then again, what of all of the other offenders rotting away under mandatory sentences.
2. Libby didn't deserve a communation, and he certainly didn't deserve a pardon. Obstruction cases should rarely, if ever, warrant clemency. The communtation made me livid, especially from an administration that vigorously defended the sentencing guidelines.
2. Libby didn't deserve a communation, and he certainly didn't deserve a pardon. Obstruction cases should rarely, if ever, warrant clemency. The communtation made me livid, especially from an administration that vigorously defended the sentencing guidelines.
Scooter Libby:
The sentence was commuted in June 2007 by President Bush, voiding the prison term. The convictions still stand on the record. (from Wikipedia).
He was not pardoned. I really expected that Bush would pardon him at the end. BUT Libby was one of Cheney's guys and perhaps not pardoning him was a partng shot to Cheney for steering him down the wrong path.
The pardons of the border patrol officers did not surprise me. we all talk about illegal immigration being a big issue. It was not even discussed during the campaigns (or minimally) and this was perhaps Bush's way of bringing the topic back to the table.
To Anon 10:13:
Both of Michelle's dresses were beautiful. Laura's seemed drab, but it was very patrician and appropriate for a 60 something WASP. I happened to like the color and thought she looked very nice as well.
The sentence was commuted in June 2007 by President Bush, voiding the prison term. The convictions still stand on the record. (from Wikipedia).
He was not pardoned. I really expected that Bush would pardon him at the end. BUT Libby was one of Cheney's guys and perhaps not pardoning him was a partng shot to Cheney for steering him down the wrong path.
The pardons of the border patrol officers did not surprise me. we all talk about illegal immigration being a big issue. It was not even discussed during the campaigns (or minimally) and this was perhaps Bush's way of bringing the topic back to the table.
To Anon 10:13:
Both of Michelle's dresses were beautiful. Laura's seemed drab, but it was very patrician and appropriate for a 60 something WASP. I happened to like the color and thought she looked very nice as well.
I think she is right at that 60 age (or very late 50's) but I'm not going to google her to find out. The point being is Laura Bush was dressed age (and wealth) appropriate as was Michelle Obama.
(1) Not on your life. Gunning a man down in cold blood and calling it "self-defense" means I should be able to walk outside and shoot any of my neighbors. After all, this is Texas, we have a large number of concealed-carry licensees here, and for all I know, one of them could be coming to shoot me for leaving a trashbag in the breezeway last night. It's better than safe than sorry, really, and who is going to miss my neighbors? They play their music so loud.
Also, I find it funny that Texas congressmen complain that the "mandatory minimum" sentence was "too high," while at the same time voting for mandatory minimums for drug crimes! Way to go, Texas!
(2) Again, not on your life. The man was convicted, and in my book, when someone is convicted, the proper channel is an appeal, not an immediate cry to help for your buddies at the upper echelons of government.
(3) Pardons and commutations ought to be used for cases where the system has reached an unjust result, e.g., the crack-cocaine sentences that were carried out by the now-advisory Guidelines, or ones where new, exculpatory evidence was disallowed by the trial court judge because of technicalities. The criminal justice system should not be viewed as a "negative" thing that exists only to punish and take away rights, but to safeguard society by incarcerating those that are dangerous (and reforming them) and doing right by those unfairly accused, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced by the system.
Also, I find it funny that Texas congressmen complain that the "mandatory minimum" sentence was "too high," while at the same time voting for mandatory minimums for drug crimes! Way to go, Texas!
(2) Again, not on your life. The man was convicted, and in my book, when someone is convicted, the proper channel is an appeal, not an immediate cry to help for your buddies at the upper echelons of government.
(3) Pardons and commutations ought to be used for cases where the system has reached an unjust result, e.g., the crack-cocaine sentences that were carried out by the now-advisory Guidelines, or ones where new, exculpatory evidence was disallowed by the trial court judge because of technicalities. The criminal justice system should not be viewed as a "negative" thing that exists only to punish and take away rights, but to safeguard society by incarcerating those that are dangerous (and reforming them) and doing right by those unfairly accused, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced by the system.
Pardons and commuting sentences should be rare, like Blue Moons. Few have been justified. Clinton and Reagan issued about 90% too many. Bush issued about 90% too many (particularly Scooter, who is doing very well on the speaker circuit making $100,000 speaking to Republicans).
I hope Obama curbs this trend. It shakes the average person's belief in the legal system... of course, after the abuses of the last eight years overall, ...
RFDIII
Post a Comment
I hope Obama curbs this trend. It shakes the average person's belief in the legal system... of course, after the abuses of the last eight years overall, ...
RFDIII
# posted by : 3:16 PM
: 3:16 PM << Home
