This winter's change of presidential administrations featured an outburst of clemency actions by leaders of both major political parties.
While the orders by Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump were cheered by the convicted people who were released from prison or had their criminal records cleared, critics took aim at what they termed crassly political or personal White House agendas.
Biden was assailed for pardoning his son, Hunter, and for blanket clemency for thousands of drug offenders, some of whom his own Justice Department officials said did not deserve mercy.
Trump was faulted for clearing more than 1,500 people who invaded the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including many who assaulted law enforcement officers.
As the power to grant pardons or commutations of sentences for federal crimes rests with only one person, the president, the lack of legal standards for such actions make it appear that only cronies, relatives, or political supporters obtain them.
In fact, only a minuscule number of convicted criminals benefit from clemency actions, a result criticized by an online panel convened Tuesday by the nonpartisan think tank Council on Criminal Justice.
Speakers from different segments of the ideological spectrum agreed that the process would be much improved if the thousands of people who seek presidential relief could get timely screening by a presidentially appointed group of experts. (State governors also can exercise clemency powers, but the discussion dealt primarily with the federal process.)
Paul Larkin of the Heritage Foundation lamented that many acts of presidential clemency in recent times have been regarded as "a political tool" rather than expressions of justice and mercy.
The U.S. Justice Department houses an Office of the Pardon Attorney that is tasked with making recommendations on clemency requests, but presidents are free to ignore the suggestions or not consult with the DOJ office at all.
Larkin noted that the DOJ office has a conflict of interest because the Justice Department has prosecuted everyone seeking clemency, so may be unlikely to recommend that its own targets obtain prison releases or shorter sentences.
The Justice Department "has its thumbs on the scale," said Cynthia Roseberry of the American Civil Liberties Union.
David Safavian of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Unify.us said that because there are so few clemency requests granted and only controversial ones tend to be publicized , the public may assume that there was some "nefarious reason" that a president acted.
Some clemency grants over the years "stink to high heaven," Safavian said. He cited President Bill Clinton's pardon on his last day in office in 2001 of Marc Rich, a fugitive who fled the U.S. to Switzerland during his prosecution, owed $48 million in taxes and was charged with 51 counts for tax fraud.
Panelists generally agreed that presidents create what Roseberry called a "balanced approach" to considering the thousands of clemency requests on file at the Justice Department.
One suggestion was that the president designate the vice president to take charge of the process, although the vice president might be reluctant to take on that job if she or he could blamed in a later political race if someone granted clemency commits another high-profile crime.
Another possibility mentioned was that instead of confining clemency to the end of a president's term or the Christmas holidays, the White House could convene expert panels on four Saturdays each year to review pending petitions and make recommendations.
The goal, panelists said, should be to ensure that not only friends or financial contributors to presidents get consideration, but many more "average people" in prison are rewarded for good behavior or accomplishments over many years in custody.
As it is, Roseberry said, many convicted people are judged for something they did decades ago, and "that individual no longer exists."
CJJ plans to post a recording of the clemency session on its website, counciloncj.org , later this week.
Comentarios