Mississippi Gov. Halle Barbour Pardons 4 Killers

[adamt]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

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]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

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]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

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]

Originally Posted by flo

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]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

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]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

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