Mississippi Clemency and Presidential Pardons
By Hayes Hunt and Catherine Hamilton
Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour granted clemency to over 200 people prior to leaving office. Among those receiving a full pardon were over a dozen convicted murderers and five men who worked for the Governor at his mansion. Victims’ rights advocates and the families of those slain by the convicted murderers have, understandably, voiced opposition. Mr. Barbour’s clemency decisions involved an unusually high number of pardons for those found guilty of violent crimes, including murder, manslaughter, and rape. Pardons are typically reserved for less violent crimes.
Others are bothered by the Governor’s acts of clemency for the five individuals who worked for the Governor as “trusties.” The idea of “trusties” certainly invokes historically negative stereotypes of the South and prison labor. Think Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke. Those inmates lucky enough to be chosen as "trusties" to work at the Governor's mansion have an unfair opportunity to garner favor in an effort to strengthen their chances for a pardon. Barbour considered his pardons for the trusties to be appropriate based on "tradition."
Mr. Barbour’s clemency decisions have also been challenged by the State Attorney General on the grounds that the state-required public notice provision was not followed. In response, a state judge has temporarily blocked the release of 21 prisoners.
Presidential pardons avoid some of the problems raised by the former Mississippi Governor’s acts. The first pardons granted by President George Washington were to Pennsylvania farmers involved in the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Alexander Hamilton discussed pardons in The Federalist Papers as a tool to quell rebellion.
Today, those still serving their sentence are not permitted to seek clemency. Now, at the federal level, there is a five-year waiting period for petitioners seeking clemency from the President. 28 C.F.R. § 1.2. The basis for granting a pardon for a federal crime is the “demonstrated good conduct [of the petitioner] for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence.” United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 1-2.112.
At the federal level, there is input from many as opposed to just one. Petitions for pardon are addressed to the President of the United States but submitted to the Pardon Attorney. 28 C.F.R. § 1.1 The Pardon Attorney reviews and investigates the petition, and prepares a DOJ recommendation. In addition to the President and the Pardon Attorney, the United States Attorney is often involved in the analysis of a petition for pardon. For instance, the U.S. Attorney may provide insight into the petitioner, including his/her wrongdoing, involvement in other criminal activity, reputation in the community, as well as information concerning the victim. United States Attorneys’ Manual, § 1.2111.
Mississipi should take a look at the federal pardon standards and consider reform over tradition.


Comments (5)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endScott Welch - January 25, 2012 2:52 PM
Not getting into the merits of the debate, but - lest anyone be confused - that is not a picture of our Governor's Mansion where trustys serve.
Michael Hayes - January 25, 2012 2:59 PM
Good article and insights sir -- as always - but I don't necessarily agree that the federal pardon model has sufficient controls/safeguards to make it a model for any jurisdiction -- for example, take a look at some of the Presidential pardons that came out of the Bush and Clinton White Houses . . . Marc Rich, Scooter Libby, Clinton's brother Roger . . . if DOJ were truly exercising independent judgment concerning those petitions for pardon, how did those pardons ultimately happen? Did the President ignore DOJ's advice, or influence it to his liking? Why do our elected officials wait until they are about to leave office to make these sorts of notorious pardons? Experience teaches that putting pardon POWER in one person's hands is a mistake under the federal and state constitutions and that ought to be changed.
Scott Welch - February 2, 2012 2:11 PM
The Mississippi Supreme Court has now taken jurisdiction of this matter, reportedly on motion by an attorney for some of the former inmates whose pardons were at risk of being revoked by Hinds County Circuit Tomie Green. I have not yet seen a published order, but this was reported in all local media this week.
Scott Welch - February 8, 2012 3:09 PM
This matter will be argued before the Mississippi Supreme Court, presumably en banc, Thursday 2/9/2012. Arguments can be viewed via the Court's web site and the argument schedule can also be found there.
instant payday loans - June 19, 2012 7:41 AM
Hi, I do think this is an excellent blog. I stumbledupon it ;
) I am going to return once again since I book-marked it.