Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Clemency on Trial
Here's an interesting analysis of the politics of clemency/pardons, triggered by the recent story in which a prisoner released early by Mike Huckabee (former Republican Governor of Arkansas, who won some GOP primaries in 2008 and might run for President again) killed 4 cops, threatening Huckabee's career. This site and author have a libertarian point of view, fwiw. I like the distinction between pardons to correct mistakes and pardons to offer a chance for someone to be rehabilitated. This one crime will hurt many actually-rehabilitated convicts as Governors around the country will be less likely to take a chance on them. A pity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This issue is one of very few I have a completely convoluted and unsure opinion about. In the case mentioned in the article, it seems fair to me that Clemmons was freed. His 103 year sentence seems extreme to me for the crimes he committed when he was 16 years old; I agree that, if the pardon was in objection to the sentence, then it was completely fair. However, if the pardon was because Clemmons was presumed to have been better, I'm really torn as to whether the pardon was acceptable. Maybe a 16 year old who made mistakes does deserve another chance; he never did anything that we don't hear about on a regular basis. However, his behavior when he was 16 could have and did foreshadow behavior later in life that was far more destructive, and that's where I'm really torn. Can we really expect politicians to be able to tell the difference? Everyone makes mistakes, including the courts and other parts of government.
I was also really shocked by how many pardons government officials actually issue; until our discussion in class, I thought pardons were rare, like the Nixon pardon. Now though, I wonder how frequently people are pardoned. Is it a good thing that our government provides a way for people to get second chances/justice, or is it a little scary that our government may be providing a way for criminals to be released?
I think a factor for Clemmons' behavior after being released could be due to a backlash against police treatment in jails or prisons. On the outside, we don't really know what actually goes on inside the walls of a prison or jail. But the criminals on the inside who actually have faced the situations inside jails may have a backlash against society.
Also, I think that Clemmons' 103 year sentence is pretty ridiculous. First of all, how many people actually live to be 100 years old? What are they going to do? Keep Clemmons' coffin in his jail cell till 103 year comes around? Second, why would one receive a 103 year sentencing for robbery and burglary charges? I think it's crazy. For robbery, probably the most time someone should have to stay in jail for is maybe 5-10 years. I think that is a reasonable amount of time for someone to break out of a habit and make amends to their life. Clemmons' could have actually been better off if he had a shorter sentence and was let out earlier. He may not have had such a huge backlash against police.
Another thing, since his attack seemed to be directly targeting police officers, it could be the Clemmons' wanted revenge against law enforcement for taking away a huge part of his life.
Like Rachel, its difficult for me to form a concrete opinion. On one hand, obviously it was a mistake for Huckabee to pardon this prisoner, but at the same time, as Mr. Silton portrayed yesterday, those with the power to pardon dont just pardon EVERY SINGLY pardon request that passes his or her desk, OFCOURSE there is substantial consideration. How could he have known this prisoner would go A-Wall? I have to disagree with Mark however on one point-while it COULD have been backlash against treatment in prison, I would hope that someone who has been granted a pardon, something that is pretty rare in the sense that few of all convicts are ever awareded it, would value this gift and move on! This is a pardon, not probation! Someone has just cleared you of your crimes. Value that
I think that having a limit on how many years a sentence can be changes the whole discipline aspect of spending time in jail. Instead of a permanent and limiting punishment, it becomes a "doing time" deal. Long sentences force people to accept their circumstances and maybe see that their actions were wrong (This is true repentance because there is no incentive for the inmate to reach this humbling conclusion). But if it becomes a matter of doing time, repentance has the incentive of giving you an easy time until you get out or even getting a pardon from Huckabee... Then you can just keep on doing what you were doing before.
I think the concept of long or lifetime sentences is the only thing that can really "fix" people in cases that warrant such a sentence, if any fixing can happen at all. If not, then the streets will at least be a little safer. I think short sentences take the bite out of the discipline jail provides and reduces the rehabilitation/ "jail changed my life" potential to zero.
Huckabee did both the people and the inmate a disservice by placing the people in harm's way, indirectly taking the lives of those cops, and not giving the inmate the chance to change his ways that he deserved: 103 years to think everything over and realize that he was wrong etc. and to know that he would still not be getting out.
Post a Comment