PDA

View Full Version : Mississippi Gov. Halle Barbour Pardons 4 Killers


Bonnie
01-11-2012, 04:39 AM
What are murderers doing serving as trusties in the governor's mansion and then receiving full pardons by the outgoing governor? Well, apparently it's all about "tradition". :blink: I do not agree with this business of governors and presidents having carte blanche to hand out pardons as they're leaving office. :angry:

Barbour told the Associated Press for a 2008 story that releasing the trusties who live and work at the mansion is a tradition in Mississippi that goes back decades. Trusties are prisoners who earn privileges through good behavior.

"Serving your sentence at the Governor's Mansion where you pour liquor, cook and clean should not earn a pardon for murder," Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley, a Democrat, posted Monday on his Facebook page.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/09/MNDF1MMSC1.DTL#ixzz1j7hk9Eii

Outgoing Mississippi governor pardons four killers
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 11:28 AM EST, Tue January 10, 2012

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/09/justice/mississippi-murder-pardons/index.html (see video)

(CNN) -- In his last days in office, outgoing Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour pardoned four men convicted of murder, a state official said Monday.

David Gatlin, Joseph Ozment, Charles Hooker and Anthony McCray received full pardons and were released at 1 p.m. Sunday, said Suzanne Singletary, spokeswoman for the Mississippi Department of Corrections. All four were serving life sentences and worked as trusties at the governor's mansion, she said.

"It is at any governor's discretion," said Singletary.

Gatlin was convicted of murder, aggravated assault and burglary of a residence, she said. Ozment was convicted of murder, conspiracy and armed robbery in a separate case. Both inmates were at minimum security level, she said.

Hooker was convicted in a 1991 murder, while McCray was convicted in a 2001 murder, Singletary said. The governor also recently pardoned Nathan Kern, who was serving a life sentence for burglary, she said.

Families of the men's victims told CNN affiliates WAPT and WLBT they are outraged by Barbour's decision.

Attempts by CNN on Monday to reach Barbour's office for comment on the pardons were unsuccessful.

In 1993, WLBT reported, Gatlin walked into the trailer where his estranged wife, Tammy Ellis Gatlin, lived and shot her in the head. The woman's friend, Randy Walker, survived a gunshot to the head.

"Is Gov. Barbour going to pardon us from our aches and pains and heartache that we have to suffer?" the victim's mother, Betty Ellis, asked WLBT. "Is he going to pardon a child that had to grow up without a mother? Is he going to pardon me from never being able to feel her arms around my neck again? What is Barbour going to do about that?"

Tammy Gatlin's sister, Tiffany Ellis Brewer, said David Gatlin served less time than her sister lived.

"It's completely unfair," she said. "I mean, he's in jail for 18 years. She was 20 years old when she died and had her child laying in her arms when he shot her in the head. And he's pardoned?"

David Ruth, who was the lead investigator on the case, said there was an apparent communications foul-up. Tammy Gatlin's relatives received a letter from the state parole board Friday saying David Gatlin was not going to be paroled and would next be considered in October 2012. They received a call the next day saying he was being pardoned, Ruth told WLBT.

Meanwhile, the family of Ricky Montgomery told WAPT they received a call from the department on Saturday reporting Ozment's pardon. Montgomery, 33, was a store clerk who was slain on the job. Ozment was convicted of his murder.

"Of course it's devastating," said Mark McAbee, Montgomery's nephew. "You know, we go through this and it's reliving it over and over again, when I don't think the general public has any idea of the things these convicts are doing."

McAbee said his mother was incredulous two years ago to learn Ozment had been assigned to work at the governor's mansion. She wrote the Department of Corrections, he said, which told her that he met the requirements and underwent a screening process.

"We have people out on the streets that are sex offenders that have to register," McAbbe said. "This is a man (who) killed somebody. This man took somebody's life, and it's not going to indicate that on any paperwork."

Phil Bryant, Barbour's successor, is set to be inaugurated on Tuesday.

flo
01-11-2012, 05:27 AM
For shame! I am actually shocked that Haley Barbour would do this! You expect it from an outgoing liberal governor but he's supposedly 180 from that!

Pardons are a blessing and a curse. They can be wise and fair when used, say, to pardon a person wrongly convicted or someone who has served a lengthy term for a non-violent crime. But for murder? I really am just shocked beyond belief.

You can't even say that first case was strictly a crime of passion as the killer shot and attempted to murder his estranged wife's friend as well.

Barbour must be senile, it's the only reason I can think of for this travesty of justice.

flo
01-11-2012, 05:31 AM
More details from the Washington Post:

On the way into the Mississippi House chamber for the inauguration of his successor, Republican Phil Bryant, Barbour had no comment when asked by The Associated Press about the pardons.

“It’s Phil Bryant’s day,” Barbour said in response to repeated questions from the AP about what he would say to the victims’ relatives.

On Monday, state officials revealed that Barbour had given pardons to five men and that they’d been released.

The former inmates are David Gatlin, convicted of fatally shooting his estranged wife in 1993 as she held her baby and wounding her friend; Joseph Ozment, convicted in 1994 of killing a man during a robbery; Anthony McCray, convicted in 2001 of killing his wife; Charles Hooker, sentenced to life in 1992 for murder; and Nathan Kern, sentenced to life in 1982 for burglary after at least two prior convictions.

The list released Tuesday shows Barbour also granted a full pardon to Azikiwe Kambule, a South African man whose manslaughter conviction in a 1996 Mississippi carjacking and slaying drew international attention because he was a teenager when the crime was committed and prosecutors had originally sought the death penalty. In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Kambule, who wanted to withdraw his guilty plea.

Prosecutors said Kambule and Santonia Berry killed social worker Pamela McGill in Madison County on Jan. 25, 1996, because they wanted the Jackson woman’s red 1993 Dodge Stealth sports car. Her body was found nine weeks later when Berry led authorities to it.


Unbelievable.

Bonnie
01-11-2012, 07:59 AM
Yeah, I bet he doesn't want to talk to the families of these murdered victims. I hope he doesn't have any further political aspirations, if he does, I hope this comes back on him big time!

Do you know how many women are serving life sentences with no possibility of parole because they killed their abusive husbands. I wonder how many women are trusties at any governors' mansions and how many then get full pardons. I wouldn't be surprised to find out "none".

I just noticed I spelled Barbour's first name wrong in the thread title...oh well. :wink:

Bonnie
01-11-2012, 08:17 AM
trust·y (trst)
adj. trust·i·er, trust·i·est
Meriting trust; trustworthy. See Synonyms at reliable.
n. pl. trust·ies
1. A convict regarded as worthy of trust and therefore granted special privileges.
2. A trusted person


I wonder if Haley Barbour would invite any of these "trustworthy" murderers into his private home now as a guest, have a meal with them at his table and have them stay over in his guest bedroom.

Play The Man
01-11-2012, 10:28 PM
I wonder if Haley Barbour would invite any of these "trustworthy" murderers into his private home now as a guest, have a meal with them at his table and have them stay over in his guest bedroom.

Excellent point. These men will be neighbors to somebody . . . just not Barbour. He will probably live in a gated community. He will not live in fear like the next-door neighbor of one of these murderers. Very cowardly to do this on the way out the door, especially without talking with the families of the victims in order to get their input.I wonder if there is some details we are not privy to? Perhaps the cons who worked at the mansion saw something that good ol' Barbour would rather have kept a secret?

flo
01-12-2012, 08:41 AM
Update from Reuters: Mississippi judge bars release of pardoned criminals. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-usa-mississippi-pardons-judge-idUSTRE80B09F20120112)

Thank heavens sanity has prevailed. At least, for the moment.

Bonnie
01-12-2012, 11:16 AM
Excellent point. These men will be neighbors to somebody . . . just not Barbour. He will probably live in a gated community. He will not live in fear like the next-door neighbor of one of these murderers. Very cowardly to do this on the way out the door, especially without talking with the families of the victims in order to get their input.I wonder if there is some details we are not privy to? Perhaps the cons who worked at the mansion saw something that good ol' Barbour would rather have kept a secret?

Or who knows what he had them doing for him. :unsure: How could you as a governor, or a president, pardon men who have committed such crimes as these four men unless everything points to their innocence which this is not the case here. He gave them full pardons, and from what I understand, that means their records are wiped clean and their civil liberties restored. So even though they've left a trail of victims behind in their wake, they now have no record for it and are walking around free as a bird.

It's unconscionable!

Bonnie
01-12-2012, 11:52 AM
Update from Reuters: Mississippi judge bars release of pardoned criminals. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/12/us-usa-mississippi-pardons-judge-idUSTRE80B09F20120112)

Thank heavens sanity has prevailed. At least, for the moment.

The article said the five men already released have been ordered to appear in court later in January. It will be interesting to see if they all show up. I really hope there are laws in place to rescind these pardons even with these men having been freed already. :unsure:

We've seen how difficult it's been for truly innocent men to get out of prison and even then some haven't received full pardons, it's like they are free but still considered guilty of the crime. They have to "make a deal" in order to be free. The case of the West Memphis Three in Arkansas comes to mind (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/20arkansas.html?pagewanted=all). So to see a governor, with no thought for the victims or their families, just hand out full pardons to truly guilty men such as these just because they served as trusties in his mansion...because it's "tradition", it's beyond comprehension!

And I don't believe for a minute that he consulted with or considered recommendations from the parole board. One of the murderers had just been denied parole two weeks prior to this.

County Mike
01-12-2012, 12:14 PM
Definitely shady.

flo
01-12-2012, 07:39 PM
The article said the five men already released have been ordered to appear in court later in January. It will be interesting to see if they all show up. I really hope there are laws in place to rescind these pardons even with these men having been freed already. :unsure:

We've seen how difficult it's been for truly innocent men to get out of prison and even then some haven't received full pardons, it's like they are free but still considered guilty of the crime. They have to "make a deal" in order to be free. The case of the West Memphis Three in Arkansas comes to mind (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/20arkansas.html?pagewanted=all). So to see a governor, with no thought for the victims or their families, just hand out full pardons to truly guilty men such as these just because they served as trusties in his mansion...because it's "tradition", it's beyond comprehension!

And I don't believe for a minute that he consulted with or considered recommendations from the parole board. One of the murderers had just been denied parole two weeks prior to this.

Yeah, I saw that news late last night about the judge intervening but heard later that the 5 murderers mentioned in your original article have already been released. The good news is that FNC is running with this story and it's getting a lot of airtime now.

There is a technicality about notification of the pardons that might give a judge grounds to "undo" the pardons. I still think Barbour must be mentally incompetent to have done this. Imagine how the families of the victims feel?

Bonnie
01-13-2012, 12:00 AM
Authorities haven't been able to locate those four killers that were released to serve them the judge's order requiring them to check in once a day every day until they appear in court for a hearing on January 23.

Haley Barbour hightailed it out of the state to Washington D.C. where he has his lobbying firm. His firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR) was named the second-most-powerful Washington lobbying firm by Fortune Magazine in 1998.

I guess everyone was in a hurry to get out of town!

Some of the crimes prisoners received pardons for included murder, manslaughter, robbery, kidnapping and rape.

flo
01-13-2012, 01:15 AM
Authorities haven't been able to locate those four killers that were released to serve them the judge's order requiring them to check in once a day every day until they appear in court for a hearing on January 23.

Haley Barbour hightailed it out of the state to Washington D.C. where he has his lobbying firm. His firm, Barbour Griffith & Rogers (BGR) was named the second-most-powerful Washington lobbying firm by Fortune Magazine in 1998.

I guess everyone was in a hurry to get out of town!

Some of the crimes prisoners received pardons for included murder, manslaughter, robbery, kidnapping and rape.

Bonnie, it's just sickening, isn't it?

The good thing is that it appears this story has legs. O'Reilly spent a segment of his show on it tonight and said he was going to be keeping track of what happens with the parolees as well as that schmuck Barbour.

Bonnie
01-13-2012, 02:33 AM
Bonnie, it's just sickening, isn't it?

The good thing is that it appears this story has legs. O'Reilly spent a segment of his show on it tonight and said he was going to be keeping track of what happens with the parolees as well as that schmuck Barbour.

I hope they do keep the spotlight on this, Flo. He pardoned over 200 people before he left office! I read out of the 214 pardons, 198 of those were full pardons. I don't think the people of Mississippi are very happy with their former governor; even people in his own party are baffled by what he did.

Like you mentioned before in your previous post, it looks like he didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's in issuing these pardons so maybe some of these rapists and murderers will be back where they belong. If not, I'm afraid some of these men will rape and kill again.

I really feel for the victims' families and what Barbour is putting them through all over again.

TexasRN
01-13-2012, 09:57 AM
I hope they do keep the spotlight on this, Flo. He pardoned over 200 people before he left office! I read out of the 214 pardons, 198 of those were full pardons. I don't think the people of Mississippi are very happy with their former governor; even people in his own party are baffled by what he did.

Like you mentioned before in your previous post, it looks like he didn't dot all the i's and cross all the t's in issuing these pardons so maybe some of these rapists and murderers will be back where they belong. If not, I'm afraid some of these men will rape and kill again.

I really feel for the victims' families and what Barbour is putting them through all over again.

That's a worry I have as well. If one of them does commit another crime like that then the victim's family needs to sue the pants off Barbour. I'd bankrupt that guy and ruin his life to the very best of my ability if it were my family member.


~Amy

Play The Man
01-13-2012, 09:22 PM
That's a worry I have as well. If one of them does commit another crime like that then the victim's family needs to sue the pants off Barbour. I'd bankrupt that guy and ruin his life to the very best of my ability if it were my family member.


~Amy

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that they could do that. As best I know, there is not "malpractice" for government officials.

TexasRN
01-14-2012, 11:04 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that they could do that. As best I know, there is not "malpractice" for government officials.


I might still try to sue. It would at least bring attention to it again and maybe, just maybe weigh on his conscience. Also, I'd have to talk myself out of physically attacking the man myself if one of my family members was harmed as a result of his actions.


~Amy

adamt
01-14-2012, 12:22 PM
with a guy who has such a good record, i find it hard to believe that he would do something stupid, so i doubt this is as cut and dry as it appears to all of us who have absolutely no idea what is happening except for what the press tells us.... i guess i would put more faith in barbour as opposed to the press, barbour has a better track record, and after all, doesn't he have personal experience with those guys?

NateR
01-14-2012, 12:37 PM
I personally think there should be a limitation on these kinds of pardons. They should never be allowed to pardon anyone convicted of crimes like 1st degree murder, rape or child molestation. Anyone serving a life sentence or on death row (who had not committed one of those three crimes), could only be pardoned after the pardon had been approved by a majority vote in the state senate.

The senate vote should also apply to repeat offenders, who had already served at least one prison sentence prior to their current sentence.

Just giving the governor, or President, blanket pardons to give out to whomever he choses is ridiculous.

Bonnie
01-15-2012, 05:09 AM
with a guy who has such a good record, i find it hard to believe that he would do something stupid, so i doubt this is as cut and dry as it appears to all of us who have absolutely no idea what is happening except for what the press tells us.... i guess i would put more faith in barbour as opposed to the press, barbour has a better track record, and after all, doesn't he have personal experience with those guys?

I understand why you would say that about the press and normally I would agree with you, they've certainly earned our disdain with their lack of objective and unbiased reporting, but, I don't think that's the case here.

From what he's said himself, he fully defends it. Talking about it being rooted in Christian values, something to that effect, and giving 2nd chances. The victims and their families don't get a 2nd chance. They can't wipe away what was done to them like the governor so easily wiped clean these men's records with full pardons. These murderers took away their victims' civil liberties forever, but theirs are restored with a few strokes of a pen. If this stands, the man who shot his wife in the head and killed her while she held her baby in her arms will be able to go buy a gun. This same man was refused parole just two weeks before Barbour pardoned him. These rapists that were released could move right next door to their victims because, "Rape, what rape?". If any of these rapists are pedophiles, they can now freely be near children.

I don't think Gov. Barbour gave any thought at all to the victims or their families, or that his actions could cause possible future victims.

He's earned my doubt, but no benefit of...

I personally think there should be a limitation on these kinds of pardons. They should never be allowed to pardon anyone convicted of crimes like 1st degree murder, rape or child molestation. Anyone serving a life sentence or on death row (who had not committed one of those three crimes), could only be pardoned after the pardon had been approved by a majority vote in the state senate.

The senate vote should also apply to repeat offenders, who had already served at least one prison sentence prior to their current sentence.

Just giving the governor, or President, blanket pardons to give out to whomever he choses is ridiculous.

I really think Barbour abused this power. Pardons should not be in the hands of one sole authority. I'm not sure about a majority vote in the state senate (might be possibility of some abuse there too), but definitely (hopefully) there should be an impartial, objective panel.

The trusties are obviously easy picks, but who exactly picks out/decides which "lucky Joes" are to be blessed with a governor's pardon? Anyone know?

adamt
01-15-2012, 06:17 AM
I understand why you would say that about the press and normally I would agree with you, they've certainly earned our disdain with their lack of objective and unbiased reporting, but, I don't think that's the case here.

From what he's said himself, he fully defends it. Talking about it being rooted in Christian values, something to that effect, and giving 2nd chances. The victims and their families don't get a 2nd chance. They can't wipe away what was done to them like the governor so easily wiped cleaned these men's records with full pardons. These murderers took away their victim's civil liberties forever, but their's are restored with the flick of a pen. If this stands, the man who shot his wife in the head and killed her while she held her baby in her arms will be able to go buy a gun. This same man was refused parole just two weeks before Barbour pardoned him. These rapists that were released could move right next door to their victims because, "Rape, what rape?". If any of these rapists are pedophiles, they can now freely be near children.

I don't think Gov. Barbour gave any thought at all to the victims or their families, or that his actions could cause possible future victims.

There were over 200 pardons, how do we even know that he personally signed each of them (I think that should be a requirement if it isn't); they may have been literally "rubber stamped" with one of those signature stamps by an office worker. :unsure:

He's earned my doubt, but no benefit of...



I really think Barbour abused this power. These type of pardons should not be in the hands of one sole authority. I'm not sure about a majority vote in the state senate (might be possibility of abuse there too), but definitely (hopefully) there should be an impartial, objective panel.

The trusties are obviously easy picks, but who exactly picks out/decides which "lucky Joes" are to be blessed with a Governor's pardon? Anyone know?

you definitely have a rock solid argument, i always try to give people in positions greater than mine, the benefit of the doubt but even i am having a hard time seeing how this is acceptable, and i even cut pres b.o. slack on some of his military decisions, based solely on the fact that he is privy to way more info than we are, or even he was when he was debating mccain.... which is why i find it pointless to ask defense questions at presidential debates, the amount of knowledge anyone but the pres and pentagon have on matters that matter is nothing compared to what the actual facts are, and i understand that..... i am trying to apply that here, but as you(bonnie) have aptly pointed out, there really is no way to understand what he has done and it is hard to imagine him knowing anything that we don't that could excuse this behavior, and you would think if he could he would

Tyburn
01-15-2012, 04:26 PM
IMHO there should be in the law of any nation, the ability to hand out a state pardon.

I think in England the only pardons that ever came were from the Monarch on a very special occasion.

I think if I had to standardize it, I would say in application of the United Kingdom that on Each of the Monarchs Birthdays that fall within one of his Sabath Years, he may pardon ONE individual of his choosing, under guidence from the Government. I would encourage the Government to use a wide criteria that focusesd on remorse. Does the prisoner except what they have done, and believe that they deserve the sentance given to them, and what have they done to proove that.

In the United States I would standardize it and say that every year the President of the Union may choose a State, and that the Guv of that State should with the advice of the STATE Government, release someone within their jurisdiction. This way every 50 odd years ONE criminal from each state, would be released, and with the changes of Gov and Pres falling so far below that, the idea of this being a partisan thing would be too far spread out to call. In this event, it would take 150 odd years for the Gov to have release all five men reportedly done...its not just how many, its...why should they all be from THAT state?

I would not limit them in their choice...I have come to believe that there is a place in the most harsh of laws, for compassion, mercy, and forgiveness.

No ammount of time behind bars, nor even an execution, will bring back someone who has been murdered, or diminish the pain. BUT then I would also give the next of kin to the victim of murder, the ability to save the murderer from execution (though not for release)

Whilst I find this case a bit foolish, too forgiving, and on the basis of personal service which feels more like a kinda corrupt form of slavory, we should keep in mind possibly that As, we, none of us, deserve the least of what Almighty GOD has granted us, perhaps, with moderation, we should consider some ability for spontaneous forgiveness in the justice system

Bonnie
01-15-2012, 09:53 PM
IMHO there should be in the law of any nation, the ability to hand out a state pardon.

I think in England the only pardons that ever came were from the Monarch on a very special occasion.

I think if I had to standardize it, I would say in application of the United Kingdom that on Each of the Monarchs Birthdays that fall within one of his Sabath Years, he may pardon ONE individual of his choosing, under guidence from the Government. I would encourage the Government to use a wide criteria that focusesd on remorse. Does the prisoner except what they have done, and believe that they deserve the sentance given to them, and what have they done to proove that.

In the United States I would standardize it and say that every year the President of the Union may choose a State, and that the Guv of that State should with the advice of the STATE Government, release someone within their jurisdiction. This way every 50 odd years ONE criminal from each state, would be released, and with the changes of Gov and Pres falling so far below that, the idea of this being a partisan thing would be too far spread out to call. In this event, it would take 150 odd years for the Gov to have release all five men reportedly done...its not just how many, its...why should they all be from THAT state?

I would not limit them in their choice...I have come to believe that there is a place in the most harsh of laws, for compassion, mercy, and forgiveness.

No ammount of time behind bars, nor even an execution, will bring back someone who has been murdered, or diminish the pain. BUT then I would also give the next of kin to the victim of murder, the ability to save the murderer from execution (though not for release)

Whilst I find this case a bit foolish, too forgiving, and on the basis of personal service which feels more like a kinda corrupt form of slavory, we should keep in mind possibly that As, we, none of us, deserve the least of what Almighty GOD has granted us, perhaps, with moderation, we should consider some ability for spontaneous forgiveness in the justice system

I don't think we want to give that kind of discretion to a president, Dave, this should be handled by the states.

I feel like this type of pardon (the pardon of a guilty person) should be given sparingly (if ever) and just in very special circumstances. Instead of pardoning the guilty at the end of their term(s), governors should instead be pardoning those who have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated.

As usual in this manworld, everything is assbackwards, we let the guilty go free and do our damndest to keep the innocent imprisoned.

Tyburn
01-15-2012, 10:26 PM
1)I don't think we want to give that kind of discretion to a president, Dave, this should be handled by the states.

2) I feel like this type of pardon (the pardon of a guilty person) should be given sparingly (if ever) and just in very special circumstances. Instead of pardoning the guilty at the end of their term(s), 3) governors should instead be pardoning those who have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated.

As usual in this manworld, everything is assbackwards, we let the guilty go free and do our damndest to keep the innocent imprisoned.

1)I aggree...I use the President merely to select a State...otherwise we'd have 50 odd pardons a year...thats too much. I suppose you could bypass the President by setting up a non desputable Rota prior to the introduction of the law...but how would you choose which state to put in which order?? Perhaps you should have them pardon in the order they were admitted to the Union...I could go for that

2) I aggree with the thing about the out going governors...like I said, it feels odd that they would naturally release those who had served for them...thats kinda like bad slavery IMHO

3) Well I should hope that there is very little of that. The one thing you dont want to do is try to show that the Justice System is wrong in the first place. This certainly shouldnt be hunt the innocent and let him go...that would be to admit that there are wrongly convicted innocents...I'm sure there are...but this is not to be used as a tool to condemn the courts.

I use an example. Mario Yamasaki made a judgement, and the UFC have gone and given the loooser the bonus AND told him if he appeal they will change it. This makes a mockery of the Refs decision.

You DONT want some Gov pardoning suspects because he blatently thought the courts were wrong. Your Justice System may need a revamp...but you cant be seen to over-rule it because you believe its wrong without implying that your courts are corrupt and whilst they might be, better clean up comes from mutted reform, then some State Government declaring war on its justice system.

We must NEVER let the Pardon be anything less then a pardon...which is to overturn the courts based on compassion in a case where clearly the guilty is guilty. If there is any danger of it being used to grossly undermine the courts, then justice itself will crumble, and faith in the laws of the land will evaporate. Equally, you cant give the message to the courts that its alright to be a little uncertain of the truth because the likelihood of an innocent being jailed will only be until he's pardoned. Both are corruptions the justice system would probably accidently partake in.

If you cant be trusted with the pardon...better to pardon nobody, and accidently abuse a few innocents...then undermine the whole law based on the handful of human error cases.

Also...by Pardon...I mean the avoidance of sentance...NOT the obliteration of his record. For example, if a killer used a firearm to kill...we are letting him off the sentance, we are NOT re-arming him. Same with sex offenders...we might let them go, but they must still be registered. I do NOT believe that anyone should EVER have their records removed. Not even if they ARE innocent...they oughta still have before the courts appeal, the old crimes accused at least listed. I merely mean we are sparing the death sentance, and the incarceration of a single prisoner per state, per year. I am not suggesting anything, and I mean ANYTHING beyond that.

flo
01-15-2012, 11:27 PM
I feel like this type of pardon (the pardon of a guilty person) should be given sparingly (if ever) and just in very special circumstances. Instead of pardoning the guilty at the end of their term(s), governors should instead be pardoning those who have been wrongly convicted and incarcerated.



Excellent point, Bonnie. It's gotten to the point that some governors see the end of their term approaching (Haley Barbour said as much in his interview with Brett Baier) and think "Oh, I need to give out pardons" instead of doing so selectively on case-by-case merit.

Power for power's sake is ALWAYS a bad thing.

Bonnie
01-16-2012, 12:19 AM
Power for power's sake is ALWAYS a bad thing.

I found this from a court case in regard to a pardon, "Ex parte Crump, Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Oct. 4, 1913." I just copied a small section from one page where it speaks about exercising pardoning power:

A pardon is an act of grace and mercy bestowed by the state, through its chief executive, upon offenders against its laws. Yet a pardon properly granted is also an act of justice, supported by a wise public policy. While the power to pardon, parole, reprieve, or commute after conviction for offense against the state is a matter of executive discretion, this discretion should be exercised on public considerations alone. An undue exercise of the pardoning power is greatly to be deplored. It is inexcusable. It is a blow at law and order and is an additional hardship upon society in its irrepressible conflict with crime and criminals. If the Governor believes a law under which the prisoner has been convicted to be unjust or too harsh, still he should not for that reason alone exercise the pardoning power. The duty of mitigating the severity of the law lies with the Legislature. As an officer he should look upon the law as wise and just, whatever may be his private opinion. An abuse of the pardoning power may be so great as to warrant an impeachment of the officer who exercises it.

Says Bishop: "No official person, whatever his station or the nature of his office, is justified in performing any official acts from private motives or in pursuance of mere private views. An executive officer, asked to grant a pardon, should neither comply nor refuse merely because he would personally be pleased to see the prisoner suffer or to see him go free. He should act upon public considerations. He does not sit as a court of appeal from the Legislature. (.....)

Nothing can be more pernicious than the opinion, sometimes afloat, which assigns to the President or Governor the authority to pardon without limit and denies to the impeaching power the right to interfere. The granting of pardons is discretionary in its nature; therefore it is necessarily the more open to control by the impeaching power. If it comes to be understood that a single man, intrusted with the high function of pardon, can open all the prisons of the country and let every guilty person go free, thus at a blow striking down the law itself and not be himself punished for the high misdemeanor, the most disastrous consequences to liberty and law will sooner or later follow. Such a conclusion is itself the annihilation of law, and only upon law can liberty repose." (......)

Bonnie
01-16-2012, 06:18 AM
3) Well I should hope that there is very little of that. The one thing you dont want to do is try to show that the Justice System is wrong in the first place. This certainly shouldnt be hunt the innocent and let him go...that would be to admit that there are wrongly convicted innocents...I'm sure there are...but this is not to be used as a tool to condemn the courts.

I use an example. Mario Yamasaki made a judgement, and the UFC have gone and given the loooser the bonus AND told him if he appeal they will change it. This makes a mockery of the Refs decision.

You DONT want some Gov pardoning suspects because he blatently thought the courts were wrong. Your Justice System may need a revamp...but you cant be seen to over-rule it because you believe its wrong without implying that your courts are corrupt and whilst they might be, better clean up comes from mutted reform, then some State Government declaring war on its justice system.

We must NEVER let the Pardon be anything less then a pardon...which is to overturn the courts based on compassion in a case where clearly the guilty is guilty. If there is any danger of it being used to grossly undermine the courts, then justice itself will crumble, and faith in the laws of the land will evaporate. Equally, you cant give the message to the courts that its alright to be a little uncertain of the truth because the likelihood of an innocent being jailed will only be until he's pardoned. Both are corruptions the justice system would probably accidently partake in.

If you cant be trusted with the pardon...better to pardon nobody, and accidently abuse a few innocents...then undermine the whole law based on the handful of human error cases.

Also...by Pardon...I mean the avoidance of sentance...NOT the obliteration of his record. For example, if a killer used a firearm to kill...we are letting him off the sentance, we are NOT re-arming him. Same with sex offenders...we might let them go, but they must still be registered. I do NOT believe that anyone should EVER have their records removed. Not even if they ARE innocent...they oughta still have before the courts appeal, the old crimes accused at least listed. I merely mean we are sparing the death sentance, and the incarceration of a single prisoner per state, per year. I am not suggesting anything, and I mean ANYTHING beyond that.

If a mistake has been made where an innocent person has been wrongly convicted, and it can be proven, our courts should want to correct this wrong. However, prosecutors do not like to see their cases overturned and sometimes stubbornly refuse to move from their position even with the truth staring them in the face. We want the law and courts to work correctly and be just, not stand behind and defend a wrong because they don't want to look bad.

If the law wasn't followed by the Governor in the case of these pardons, then the court may be able to reverse them from what I understand.

Tyburn
01-17-2012, 06:22 PM
1)If a mistake has been made where an innocent person has been wrongly convicted, and it can be proven, our courts should want to correct this wrong. However, prosecutors do not like to see their cases overturned and sometimes stubbornly refuse to move from their position even with the truth staring them in the face.

2)We want the law and courts to work correctly and be just, not stand behind and defend a wrong because they don't want to look bad.

3) If the law wasn't followed by the Governor in the case of these pardons, then the court may be able to reverse them from what I understand.

1) that wont need a pardon, simply the natural outcome of a re-trial, or the winning of an appeal case.

2) the answer is reform, not to undermine them. If the courts practise bad justice, then rather then undoing what they have done, the emphasis should be to stop them doing in the first place.

3) good :)