What is it about former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's pardons that irk us so much?
It can't be because 189 people who were already out of prison and obeying the law will have better job prospects and restored civil rights because he pardoned them. Or that the 13 sick and dying prisoners he released early will now get to recover or pass away at home, with their families nearby for financial and emotional support. Is it that 10 others -- including some murderers who were safe and reformed enough that Governor Barbour trusted them around his own family every day -- will now get to reunite with their families, get jobs, and pay taxes like the rest of us?
These are the consequences of Governor Barbour's pardons, which must have inspired his eloquent and heartfelt defense of his decisions in the Washington Post this week. Governor Barbour's defense addresses our safety concerns and invites us to join him in a communal act of forgiveness and mercy. His pardons remind us of values we cherish and champion: that people can change, punishment can lead to reformation, second chances can be earned and deserved, and forgiveness is available to all of us.
So, I ask again: why have Barbour's pardons -- and pardons in general -- created such a backlash?
The last 30 years of sentencing policy may provide an answer. Thirty years ago, America's approach to punishment shifted. We rejected the notion that a criminal could be rehabilitated, and many states and the federal government began abolishing parole eligibility. They replaced it with sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing laws that deprive judges of the power to tailor sentences to fit individuals and their unique crimes.
Getting "tough on crime" became popular among the public and politicians alike. In election years, Congress created more one-size-fits-all mandatory minimum sentences or increased the length of many of those already on the books. Whoever we most feared -- drug offenders, immigrants, consumers of child pornography -- became the next target of a long mandatory prison sentence. Governments also began curtailing prisoners' options for challenging their convictions or sentences, so that even legitimate legal claims could not be brought into courts. Our lust to punish -- and punish harshly -- has cost us dearly. We are the world's top jailer; we now pay over $60 billion each year to lock up 2.3 million people.
Pardons clash with this recent history and cause a kind of philosophical whiplash. They shouldn't. We are also a people who claim to be predominantly Christian and believe in mercy and redemption. Christian or otherwise, most of us extol second chances. With punishments as draconian as ours have become, second chances can literally be the difference between life and death, being an active or absent parent, prosperity or poverty. The pardon power is often the only remedy for those who have been unfairly or excessively punished in the harsh and inflexible sentencing system we have spent 30 years building. Pardons and commutations can correct some of these injustices. They grant forgiveness when, sadly, we forget to be merciful. Our founding fathers included the pardon power in our Constitution for precisely this reason. They betted on us going too far in our zeal to punish and created pardons as a safeguard for those on the receiving end of our excess.
With 30 years of unwise punishment policies to repair, the pardon power is more important now than ever before. Governor Barbour was right to use and defend it. Other governors and President Obama can live up to our nation's highest and best ideals -- doing justice and showing mercy -- by following his example.
Bennett L. Gershman and Joel Cohen: Pardoning Criminals -- Appropriate Mercy or Perverting Justice?
Governor Haley Barbour Pardons | Fox News
As debate roars over Haley Barbour pardons, five released convicts ...
8 of the murderers Haley Barbour pardoned killed their wives ...
Outgoing Governor Haley Barbour's pardons shock Mississippi - Los ...
Haley Barbour Pardons David Gatlin, Convicted Murderer
Haley Barbour's Last-Minute Pardons Hurt the GOP's Law-and ...
We're left with the victims themselves, and this is the shame of America's justice system: it cares NOTHING for the victims of crimes. The only person able to offer forgiveness to a cold-blooded murderer (lest we forget, some of these pardoned men put guns to innocent peoples' heads and pulled the trigger) is the person who that murderer has affected. If the victims' relatives want to offer amnesty or grace, then let them. If they don't, the person stays locked up.
The fact is, people who have not been affected in any way by a criminal should not be able to offer "forgiveness" to them. Forgiveness is a concept, nothing more. It means nothing without some kind of metanarrative attached to it. This isn't about "forgiveness", this is about playing god. And that's what politicians do best.
Let us empathize with the victim, for a change. It's very sexy to empathize with murderers for some reason. Makes us feel very countercultural. This is my plea with all who read this to empathize with the victim. The victim has lost loved ones. The victims have lost years of their life in the fog of grief. This isn't justice. This is a game.
Sigh.
The only good news is that the courts are challenging 140 of these pardons of not meeting criteria, and the pardons may not be legal. We can only hope. Making sure these men don't have to register as sex offenders and still get to walk around with firearms seems like an idea not well thought through.
http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/robbery-that-nets-11-00-leads-to-life-sentences/
Governor Barbour dd free the Scott sisters after 16 years on condition that one donated a kidney to the other but his failure to pardon them is conspicuous.
Here is one of many articles on the matter.
When the issue of any Pardon comes up I always wonder about all those that Don't get a Pardon.
The process of giving pardons surely gives freedom to some and while doing so the pardon surely leaves others out that also should have their freedom.
Those that are currently serving a rock cocaine sentence that was a harsher sentence than a powder cocaine is. Well that law was changes and there is some parity in sentencing between the two types of drug sentencing. ...Shouln't the people stiil sitting through the harder sentence be let go.
States have widly differing sentences for simple pot posession. Thats not right. Thats not equal and its not justice.
When criminals receive more attention than victims, things will go fatally wrong.
When?
What people very often miss is that our retributive justice system does not do justice for victims. Criminal laws are not crimes against a particular person, but against the state, and the punishment (imprisonment, a fine, death) is meant to vindicate the state's interest. Although the family of a murder victim may get peace of mind knowing that their loved one's murderer is locked up or on death row, does it really do them justice? Incarceration or death of the murderer will not restore the life of the victim. An ideal justice system would, as much as possible, remove the threat, rehabilitate the offender and heal the victims. That isn't what we have, however, and post hoc attempts like Barbour's will earn backlash every time.
There are many low level/drug offenders who shouldn't even be incarcerated in the first place. The drug laws in this country are horrific, and are a disjointed patchwork from state to state. Some states will net you a felony and five year imprisonment for possession of cocaine in personal use amounts.
As for our idea of rehabilitation, yes, it's needed. But it depends on the crime for which you are incarcerated. Prisons offer very little educational or trade opportunities, and when prisoners are pardoned or released, they have no skills to rely on to help prevent recidivism.
And then there are those who can not be rehabilitated. Despite popular psychological belief, sex offenders and child predators can not be rehabilitated. They do not think they have done anything wrong, and they believe that their life patterns are normal.
But I can't help notice, Ms. Gill, that the word "victim" is glaringly absent in your piece. They are just as glaringly absent in the almost the entire criminal justice process despite one of the most important elements. Why do their needs and voices not have any place in this process of pardoning? A mother whose child was brutally removed from her, a woman who was savaged by rape, the family of an elderly couple who were beaten to death for a robbery deserve to have input during this process.