A judge yesterday in Mississippi put a hold on some of the nearly 200 pardons issued Tuesday by outgoing Republican Governor Haley Barbour.
As was first reported by the Cottonmouth blog, the Mississippi Constitution requires convicts to publish a newspaper notice that they're applying for a pardon, 30 days ahead of time, in the county where they committed their crime. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, the state's highest-ranking Democrat, says that doesn't appear to have happened in many of the cases. "Unfortunately, our research has revealed that Governor Barbour violated the Constitution," Mr. Hood said. He asked Hinds County Judge Tomie Green to block the release of 21 current inmates Governor Barbour had pardoned. Deciding the AG had a good chance of winning, Judge Green issued an injunction on letting the prisoners go.
A little context, followed by a little amazing: In 2010, Judge Green sentenced a well-to-do Jackson woman who got conditional clemency from Mr. Barbour and has become one of the pardon story headlines in my hometown Mississippi paper. She'd been sent to prison for 18 years for killing two people while driving drunk. The year before, Judge Green sentenced a less well-to-do man to similar time for a similar crime. (In case you're wondering, both defendants were white.) The first defendant got mercy from Governor Barbour; the second did not. As you can see on this bracing video of sentencing in the first case, Judge Green seems like no one to mess with, even if you're the former governor.
OK, now the amazing. North Mississippi Commentor points out the case of a man Governor Barbour pardoned for felony DUI. At the time of his pardon yesterday, officials had asked to have his parole revoked.
The reason? As North Mississippi Commentor tracks it down, he had been arrested on a new charge of felony DUI in October after a wreck that killed an 18-year-old young woman. The pardon was timely, the blog writes -- "I wonder if the decision makers in the Governor's mansion know how timely." His pardon, executive order 1095, is listed (pdf) as "full, complete and unconditional."
For Governor Barbour's history of pardons, especially his record for pardoning men who killed their wives or girlfriends, check out the Jackson Free Press and the Biloxi Sun-Herald. As for Mr. Barbour himself, it was announced yesterday that he's off to his old lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. He'll also, we learned today, work in Mississippi for a law firm.
Leave a Comment:
Laura
A few of my relatives in the state called me last night to vent about Haley. Why they called me took me awhile to figure out. They all are Republicans, and as we talked I realized it was hard for them to talk among themselves or their fellow travellers about what he did. Easier, I guess, to call the family communist :)
Nicely stated.
I want Barney Frank for president 2016. He is the greatest there is!
I agree he would be my first pick but you do know he would be 76 in 2016. More importantly, Barney said on Charlie Rose's show that he wanted to write books. He has 3 in mind and doesn't know if he will have time to write all of them. He expressed frustration that just when he got to a position of power to do something about housing, events forced him to direct his attention elsewhere.
My interpretation- It's like conservatives binged on wall street, threw up all over the country and handed Barney, Nancy and Obama the mop. I think he was tremendously frustrated that the Occupy Movement's political pressure came 2 years too late to have an impact when it counted. He really needed help in keeping the proposed wall street regulation from getting watered down due to the tremendous pressure from financial lobbyists.
I don't blame him if he doesn't want more of that. Maybe he can help educate future generations about what he learned. Who knows- maybe when the going gets weird, the pros change tactics. Maybe he will do something unusual, like join an Occupy working group with Stiglitz and Krugman.
When "60 Minutes" interviewed Barney Frank a few years ago, he affirmed that he has no plans to ever run for president: he's an openly gay Jew, meaning that about half the country would never support him.
If Senator Frank expressed this skepticism, it's perfectly understandable given his long experience with the history of public opinion on these subjects. The bigger barrier is sexual orientation but really will that really remain so formidable for the foreseeable future. The numbers are shifting fast- look at public opinion on Gay Marriage just during the last 4 years.
Although attitudes are morphing rapidly, but some say there is a ceiling there- due to the large numbers of voters who self identify as Christians. That actually is a bit of a mirage. The episcopal/anglican church has gay pastors and bishops for example. I have 4 daughters and two boys and we are pretty heavy duty Christians but the faith we have is in the power and centrality of love. What is important is that the person that you fall in love with is able to love you back. Senator Frank found that with someone and that is the only thing that is important. If one of my boys found that they only fall in love with other boys but for whatever reason they instead only go out with girls then anyone with a heart has to feel the immense sorrow for how they are missing something so precious in life. I think there is growing realization of this immense tragedy. It's another retelling of the West Side Story, Little Mermaid, Cinderella- forbidden love stories. Having a happily married gay president will be an expression of national triumph for well over half of the population.
As far as I'm concerned, it is only far away if gay politician submit to defeatism and do not pursue national office. For example Rachel ever decides to hang up her spurs and run for national office, I'll do whatever I can to help.
Picture a Maddow state of the Union presentation. Is the country ready?
Heck yeah! And it will be about time.
Wooo Hooo!!
Lets draft Barney to run in 2016.
John
Very beautifully put. I wish there were more Christian like you. However there was one slight mistake. Barney Frank is a Representative not a Senator. Though I think he'd make a great senator if he chooses to run for office again!
Oh boy. THAT was embarrassing. What was I thinking? Yes it would be nice to have him as a Senator without relying on my fumbling mind to do it. And certainly it is possible to make him a President Frank . After all, Ron Paul is 76. He just seems interested in writing his books, so more power to him. I thank him for his long service in public office.
Laura, there will be a rally tomorrow at the capitol protesting the Personhood amendment which is already on the agenda in the Legislature. Mark Potter and crew may want to stick around and cover that, too. Just a thought. Aunt Cathy
Will you send some pictures, please, if you go?
Will do.
So much for equal protection.
This conduct typifies what is wrong with many politicians and Wall Street. Favoritism at the expense of others rules the day.
If you're a Republican, a not-yet-implanted fertilized egg is a human life that is sacred and must be protected at all costs -- and a macho killer's ex girlfriend isn't.
YUP.
Having your period is now illegal ladies.
I see these pardons in the larger context of accountabilty. So as to not be held accountable Govenor Barbour waits untill his last day in office to undo the societies method of holding these criminals accountable for their actions.
The outrage expressed for his actions has the same root cause as the outrage expressed by Occupy Wall Street. The protesters are asking exactly the same question, "Why are these select few not being held accountable for their actions?"
Equality under the law. That is in the DNA of all Americans. When these inequalities are exposed to the public view it is hard to spin it away.
The words "complete, full and unconditional" are misleading. As a point of clarification, a pardon does not extend to all crimes a person has committed; it applies to specific convictions that are listed in the pardon. And the pardon can only be for those crimes within the state. A governor cannot pardon someone with a conviction from another state or the federal government.
Pardons have always been a contentious issue. Most states provide that the governor has complete authority over the pardon. This may include the ability to waive technical procedural defects in seeking a pardon. The procedures for seeking a pardon usually rests within the executive branch of the state. The governor sets up the process for seeking pardons, not the legislature. Unless authorized by a state Constitution, it is questionable whether the legislature can impose any conditions, substantive and procedural, on the governor. Usually, the state legislature can set up the requirements that allow criminal to purge their records. Each state is different, but not in the significant aspects. Barbour actions may be perfectly legal and that will be up to the state supreme court to decide the issues surrounding the pardons. Most courts are reluctant to get involved in the pardon process since it is an exclusive power of the governor.
I am curious if anyone has information on the particular cases that he pardoned? Was there a rationale behind his pardons? Like, say, dubiousness as to the sentencing of the convict? Pardons are not a statement on whether or not someone will commit a crime in the future and aren't even necessarily statements on whether or not the person was guilty for the crime for which he's being pardoned. A hypothetical convict could be serving two separate lifetime sentences for two separate murders that took place. One could be pardoned because there were legal questions as to the authenticity of his case; this will not suddenly mean that he is let go of his other life sentence. It simply means he was pardoned for the particular instance for the particular circumstance at hand. I feel like there's a lot of emphasis on what the convicts were accused of doing and not a lot of emphasis on why Barbour decided to pardon them. W/o knowing the latter I don't feel I can make a rationale assumption as to whether or not this was a good idea or even a breach of legal contract.
According to news reports, 90% of the pardons were approved by the parole board, so that leaves only 10% that are being disputed. A lot of governors do not grant many pardons until they are leaving for political reasons. Seems that this story is much ado about nothing with everyone trying to score political points. You can always find someone who will complain about specific pardons.
Mike, there are a few factual items that make this more than just usual political fodder. First, the sheer number...over 200 (most complete pardons). Governors in MS prior have only pardon a few (like 5-10).
Second, it seems many may not have posted notices in the paper 30 days prior to pardon as required by the Constitution (this is a constitutional issue, not just a code/law). This gives solid ground to revoke any of the pardons that did not meet this requirement. I don't know if past Governmental pardons have followed this public notice requirement OR if it was even scrutinized.
Still haven't seen information regarding how many pardons governors in other states typical hand out upon leaving office.
Mouzer, I hope this puts a little more light. A lot of the uproar is not based on if there is a logical rationale for the pardons but just that it is such a high number.
Questions about the constitutional authority to grant the pardons or other procedural/legal rules that he may have violated are legitimate concerns to raise. It is also legitimate to raise concerns over the pardons if something is afoot (like pardoning someone for a scandal the Governor denied being a part of or something). The sheer number doesn't seem, to me at least, to be a big deal since the number itself doesn't necessitate wrong doing. It being out of the ordinary seems to warrant legitimate inquiries as to why number was so high (and to that extent I do not blame people for making the Scoobie-Doo face), but most of the articles I have read do not seem to cover this aside from the constitutional issue you brought up. They mostly seem to focus on the families of the victims and seem to be emotionally emphasized. I would be pissed if someone I thought killed my daughter or my sibling or what have you was pardoned and allowed to walk free. However from a neutral, legal perspective if there was a legitimate reason to pardon that person (such as ambiguity of the convicted's actual guilt) then the pardon was being used as it was intended (I.E. to bypass the normal judicial system which sometimes will be corrupt or erroneous).
I am curious though- since you brought up the comparison w/ other governors and other states- how many has he given per year up to this point?
No "thinking" in these cases. As far as I know, no pardon was given because of doubt of guilt. The Governor himself has stated they were given so their record would no longer be a barrier to employment, licenses, voting, hunting, etc. (Again, vast majority had already completed their sentence.)
There no doubt on the constitutionality of the governor's pardon privilege, only if the notice requirement was followed in all cases.
Gov. Haley had only given a few pardons up to this year - 5 in 2008, suspended the sentence of the Scott sisters in 2010, and then pardoned 1 in 2011.
The only legal issue is around the 30 day notification. The uproar has been about the huge number combined with the type of offenses.
Here's a suggestion: how about a law that says if a murderer is pardoned by a governor, then goes out and murders again, both he/she AND the governor (or former governor) serve the resulting sentence? Maybe that will make governors think twice about releasing killers the day before they leave office.
Well, would you like to go to jail for making a poor decision?
It is counter productive to punish people whose decisions turn out to be wrong if they make those decisions within the bounds of reason and the law. The decisions that our top official make are of the greatest difficulty and importance. Until we find people whose abilities rival a gods we must recognize the limits of human reasoning.
Shall we next kill the Govenor who does not stay an execution of a person later to be proven innocent? Do we kill the Judge and jury that convicted him? The poeple who gave evidence?
Humans make mistakes. As imperfect as it is our justice system is, it the best we can do.
Now if you suggest that we do away with pardons completely that is question worth considering.
Pat,
You said "It is counter productive to punish people whose decisions turn out to be wrong if they make those decisions within the bounds of reason and the law. The decisions that our top official make are of the greatest difficulty and importance."
First, I contend that it is no less counterproductive to do nothing when an official uses poor judgment. There needs to be a deterrent to make them think things through completely before acting - just lilke the threats of jail or death are supposed to deter individuals from committing crimes.
Second, Barbour was not required to make decisions on these individuals. The courts had already decided what their punishment should be. So we're not talking about a poor decision that a top official had to struggle with. What irks me is that he (and others) have done it as they leave office, knowing that there will be no personal consequences if they turn out to have made the mistake we're afraid of.
I DO think pardons should be done away with. If the courts/juries get it wrong and an innocent person goes to jail, then the process to reverse that error should also go through the courts. That's why we have appeals and why cases get reopened when new evidence surfaces.
To answer your very first question, if I allowed a convicted killer to go free and they went out and killed again, yes I would be willing to to jail for such an error in judgment.
Up to a point I agree with you. People are flawed and make mistakes all the time. The purpose of the legal system is to protect everyone from those who make mistakes that cause damage to property, security or quality of life.
There seems to be a belief that an actor's intent alone is consideration enough for a certain amount of leniency and that's just not the case. "I didn't mean to drive while I was drunk." is certainly not a defense when someone is killed and it is common knowledge that the activity is illegal.
If a governor is sending through pardons at an assembly line rate and a number of them are not even compliant with state law, I don't think a defense of "I'm only human" is good enough.
You could call it he Huckabee rule.
This is astounding. One can't even say Barbour's pattern of pardons is systemic or connected to some political ideology. What is so disturbing is that these pardons don't seem to be carefully considered on a case by case basis. 200 pardons? If Barbour took the time to carefully review each case he'd be working at it for a long time. This sounds to me that either, 1) Someone in the state;s legal system processes these as matter-of-fact paperwork or 2) that Mr. Barbour receives some sort of stipend or donation to make each one of these happen. Either one does not seem to be a fair exercise of law.
I'm imagining something like "We (Republicans) saved the state of Mississippi a bajillion dollars by reducing the prison population!"
He never reviled why he pardoned all those prisoners especially the murderers one can only think he was mad at the state for some reason and this was his way of shooting the finger at it. (my thought only) After all he will be raking in the bucks as a lobbyist which to me is very similar to prostitution.
"He'll also, we learned today, work in Mississippi for a law firm."
So he can work to put some of these people back in prison?
he is a fool.
Whaley Blubber (a self-proclaimed "fat redneck with an accent") is one of the many pols who used Hurricane Katrina to enrich his family. He also "[doesn't] remember Mississippi in the early '60s being that bad".
I'm curious how the racial mix of Barbour's pardons compares to the mix in the State's prisons. Especially the mix of the "special" 20-some.
Mr. Tom Freeland of North Mississippi Commentor was found guilty of assault on a woman -- click here --
Judge finds Freeland Guilty of Assault from the Oxford, MS online news site.
Unfortunately, we have a whole lot of good ole boyz down here.
Look here Mr. C. Manson, if you step and fetch it for me I will give you a pardon.
When Mississippi points a finger on this they should be standing in fron of a mirror.
Not to quibble over details, as Barbour clearly overstepped here, but the language of "injunction against letting the prisoners go" is misleading. In a lot of these cases, the people have already been out of prison for quite some time; this is more about expunging the records of people who have already been behaving well.
I don't think our society's intense fear of any prior criminals should prevent someone who's been behaving well from a real chance at a fresh start.
One consolation of all this mess is that we can be comfortable knowing Barbour can never run for national office! Remember Dukakis?
I think this "pardon rule" dates from a time when political enemies were routinely jailed and warfare between states was more common.
This is just more evidence that Republicans do not have a brain, all they can think about is serving their rich dark master. All most all of them are lacking and incompetent. They even release proven deadly criminals to prove the point so there is a good chance these criminals will kill again.