|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Images OK}}{{Approved}}{{Hold}}
| |
| − | [[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Law]]
| |
| − | {{CrimPro-II}}
| |
| | | | |
| − | An authorized official can '''pardon''', or forgive, a [[crime]] and its penalty; or grant '''clemency''', or the lessening of the [[penalty]], by means of a '''reprieve'''.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In [[Western civilization]], the modern-day pardon and act of clemency have evolved from tyrannical rulers who claimed the “[[divine right]]” to rule. Roman dictatorships (eg., Caligula, Nero), which exercised the absolute right of life and death over their subjects, gave way to the hereditary royalty of Europe. During the Middle Ages, [[monarch]]s claimed the "Divine Right of Kings," making them the final arbiter of their kingdoms. Although this notion was first publically challenged through a debate between Oliver Cromwell and the Levelers during the first [[English Civil War]], the practice continued even after the [[American Revolutionary War]]. The [[American Forefathers]] retained the right for governmental leaders to pardon [[criminal]]s of all sorts.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Public [[debate]] invariable surrounds the pardoning of a criminal, despite biblical teachings that stress the importance of [[forgiveness]] in human affairs. Activists contend that the act of pardoning or granting clemency means little without [[rehabiliation]], [[reconciliation]], or [[recompense]] on the part of the forgiven.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | U.S. [[President]]s continue to forgive wrong doers: notably, in 1974, [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon, who had not been convicted of [[Watergate]]-related crimes, while [[Bill Clinton]] pardoned fugitive billionaire [[Marc Rich]] in 2001.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Definitions==
| |
| − | These terms differ subtly from country-to-country, but generally:<ref> [http://law.jrank.org/pages/505/Amnesty-Pardon-Terminology-etymology.html Amnesty and Pardon - Terminology And Etymology]</ref><ref>[http://law.jrank.org/pages/507/Amnesty-Pardon-Clemency-powers-in-twentieth-century.html Amnesty and Pardon - Clemency Powers In The Twentieth Century] </ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *'''Amnesty''': 'Forgetting' the crime, e.g. if a car thief witnesses a murder, he will often be granted amnesty for his crime in order to allow him to testify against the murderer, or after a civil war a mass amnesty may be granted to absolve all participants of guilt and 'move on'. [[knife amnesty|Weapon amnesties]] are often granted so that people can hand in weapons to the police without any legal questions being asked as to where they obtained them/why they had them/etc.
| |
| − | *'''Commutation''': Substituting the penalty for a crime with the penalty for another, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime (e.g., in the USA, someone who is guilty of murder may have their sentence commuted to life imprisonment rather than death)
| |
| − | *'''Remission''': Complete or partial cancellation of the penalty of a crime, whilst still being considered guilty of said crime (i.e., reduced penalty).
| |
| − | *'''Reprieve''': Temporary postponement of a punishment, usually so that the accused can mount an appeal (especially if he's been sentenced to death)<ref>[http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reprieve legal dictionary @ the free dictionary.com]</ref>
| |
| − | *'''Clemency''': Catch-all term for all of the above, or just referring to amnesty and pardons.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A "pardon" is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. It is granted by a [[sovereignty|sovereign]] power, such as a [[monarch]], [[chief of state]], or a competent [[Roman Catholic Church|church]] authority. "Clemency" is an associated term, meaning the lessening of the penalty of the crime without forgiving the crime itself. The act of clemency is a "reprieve." Today, pardons and reprieves are granted in many countries when individuals have demonstrated that they have fulfilled their debt to society, or are otherwise deserving (in the opinion of the pardoning official) of a pardon or reprieve. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who claim they have been wrongfully convicted. Some believe accepting such a pardon implicitly constitutes an admission of guilt, so in some cases the offer is refused (cases of wrongful conviction are nowadays more often dealt with by [[appeal]] than by pardon).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Clemency is often requested by foreign governments that do not practice [[capital punishment]] when one of their citizens has been sentenced to death by a foreign nation that does practice it. [[Amnesty]] is an act of [[justice]] by which the supreme power in a [[state]] restores those who may have been guilty of any offense against it to the position of innocent persons. It includes more than pardon, in as much as it obliterates all [[legal]] remembrance of the offense. [[Commutation of sentence]] involves the reduction of legal penalties, especially in terms of [[imprisonment]]. Unlike a pardon, a commutation does not nullify the [[conviction]] and is often conditional.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==History==
| |
| − | Today, [[nation]]s around the world have their own unique [[rule]]s, [[law]]s, and [[procedure]]s for granting pardons and reprieves, with differences stemming from varying histories, cultural make-up, and religious [[tradition]]s.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Divine Right of Kings===
| |
| − | In the [[West]], pardons and clemency resulted from tyrannies claiming the “[[divine right]]” to rule. Roman dictatorships ([[Nero]], [[Caligula]], [[Julius Caesar]]), which exercised the absolute right of life and death over their subjects, were replaced in [[Europe]] by hereditary royalty (with the exception of the [[Republic of Venice]]). During the [[Middle Ages]], [[monarch]]s governed under the notion of the “Divine Right,” with their subjects meant to believe that [[God]] personally authorized the right of their kings to rule. The medieval [[Roman Catholic Church]] utilized the act of pardoning for the remission of [[punishment]] for an offense, specifically as a [[papal indulgence]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | With such divine power, such "perfect" monarchs had the absolute right to decide who was, and was not, to be arrested, tried, convicted, tortured, and executed. At times, a [[king]] could Publically demonstrate his benevolence by pardoning individuals.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The notion of the [[Divine Right of Kings]] began to break down with the first [[English Civil War]]. The national conflict had the English [[middle class]] fighting against the arrogant monarch, [[William I]], and his supporters. This was the first time in history that policy and politics were openly debated during a war. During the [[Putney Debates]], [[Oliver Cromwell]] on behalf of the king argued against the [[Levelers]] faction of the army. While the army proposed an undoing of the [[Divine Right of Kings]] and a new [[government]] based on representative [[democracy]] fostering equal rights for the people, Cromwell prevailed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Although the [[American Revolutionary War]] was inspired in part by the stance previously taken by the Levelers, a leftover from the British period of [[Divine Right]] was retained by the [[American Forefathers]]—the absolute right to pardon [[criminal]]s of all sorts. Therefore, even today an American poltical leader can evoke [[executive]] privilege—like the Roman emperors once did—and exerise the right to pardon someone without having to justify the action to anyone.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Religious basis===
| |
| − | The act of pardoning (or forgiving) someone has biblical origins. In [[Luke]]'s account of the [[crucifixion]] of [[Jesus]], Jesus says from the cross: "[[Father]], forgive them for they do not know what they are doing." In speaking such, he requested a pardon for those responsible in his [[death]]. Christianity teaches there are two aspects to [[forgiveness]]. The wrongdoer only has to accept [[Jesus]] as his pesronal [[saviour]] and since He is all-forgiving, then the matter is closed. Meanwhile, the transgressed must search [[heart]] and despite his [[suffering]], he must let go of any negative [[feeling]]s towards the wrongdoer.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Judaism]] teaches that the wrongdoer must accept full responsibility if offending others, while admitting to him or herself that they have committed a [[sin]] without trying to justify the misdeed. The wrongdoer is responsible and therefore must try to make amends.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Instead of being faithful to a higher [[power]], [[Buddhism]] is a [[philosophy]] that teaches how one should live a moral and ethical [[life]]. [[Forgiveness]] is not something that can be commanded but rather it is accomplished by surrendering negative [[emotion]]s like [[hate]] and the urge for [[revenge]] to attain a higher level of [[consciousness]]. Forgiveness can occur when negative emotions have abated toward those who would harm others.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In [[Islam]], forgiveness is the sole domain of [[Allah]], who is known as Beneficent, Merciful, and Forgiving. In order for forgiveness to occur, the misdeed must be the result of [[ignorance]], not the wrongdoer expecting that Allah will forgive him for his misdeed. The wrongdoer must quickly feel authentic [[shame]] and [[remorse]] about what their misdeed, and after requesting forgiveness, they must solemnly pledge to change their ways. Deathbed redemptions do not exist in Islam, since a person who has lived an [[evil]] life cannot be forgiven at the last moment. In Islamic countries, Sharia law, based upon interpretations of the Koran, is used to determine the relevance of pardons <ref>http://www.religiousintelligence.com/news/?NewsID=1619</ref> <ref>http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/6583</ref>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In [[Hinduism]], The concept of having performing atonement from one's wrongdoing (''Prayaschitta'' — [[Sanskrit]]: Penance), and asking for forgiveness is very much a part of the practice of [[Hinduism]]. Prayashitta is related to the law of [[Karma]]. Karma is a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The effects of those deeds and these deeds actively create present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain in others.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Forgiveness is espoused by [[Krishna]], who is considered to be an incarnation (''[[avatar]]'') of [[Vishnu]] by Hindus. Krishna said in the [[Gita]] that forgiveness is one of the characteristics of one born for a divine state. It is noteworthy that he distinguishes those good traits from those he considered to be demoniac, such as pride, self-conceit and anger ([[Bhagavad Gita]], Chapter 16, verse 3).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In [[pantheism|pantheistic]] [[culture]]s, a person who harmed another must remedy the misdeed whether it was intentional or accidental. Survival is key, not forgiveness. Therefore, even if a person is killed, then the relatives who bore the burden of the [[death]] must receive assistance from the wrongdoer. Yet if the wrongdoer did not change his ways or represented a continued threat to the [[community]], then he could be shunned or exiled even by his blood relatives. The wrongdoer would then be entitled to no forgiveness or redemption, and probably die on his own.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==World situation==
| |
| − | [[Nation]]s around the world have their own [[rule]]s, [[law]]s, and [[procedure]]s for granting pardons and reprieves. Much of these differences stem from each nation's cultural and pol-tical concepts in forgiveness. Pardons exist in [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] and [[communist]] nations, but they are given out at the whim of the [[leader]]s. The following are examples of how the act of granting pardons and reprieves are accomplished in various nations:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====United States====
| |
| − | In the [[United States]], the pardon power for [[Federal crime]]s is granted to the [[President of the United States|President]] by the [[United States Constitution]], Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:
| |
| − | :''shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of [[impeachment]].''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, and remissions of fines and forfeitures, [[Respite (law)|respites]] and [[Amnesty|amnesties]].<ref>P.S. Ruckman, Jr. 1997. “Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993),”27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271</ref> All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the [[Office of the Pardon Attorney]], an official of the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]]. The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since [[World War II]]).<ref>http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/pardoncharts/all_files/image002.gif</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Image:Hamilton-Alexander-LOC.jpg|thumb|Alexander Hamilton]]
| |
| − | The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many [[Anti-Federalist]]s remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, [[Alexander Hamilton]] defends the pardon power in ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'', particularly in ''[[Federalist No. 74]]''. In his final day in office, [[George Washington]] granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the [[Whiskey Rebellion]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Many pardons have been [[controversy|controversial]]; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President [[Gerald Ford]] to former President [[Richard Nixon]] on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the [[Watergate scandal]]. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon, and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include [[Andrew Johnson]]'s sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the [[American Civil War]], [[Jimmy Carter]]'s grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, [[George H. W. Bush's pardons]] of 75 people, including six [[Reagan administration]] officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the [[Iran-Contra]] affair, [[Bill Clinton]]'s pardons of convicted [[Bill Clinton pardons controversy|FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office]]—including [[billionaire]] fugitive [[Marc Rich]], and [[George W. Bush]]'s commutation of [[I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby]]'s prison term.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clemency.htm#pardon|title=Clemency Regulations|accessdate=2007-03-08|publisher=United States Department of Justice}}</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.<ref>''[[Burdick v. United States]],'' 236 U.S. 79 (1915)</ref> However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as [[Henry O. Flipper]]—who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)<ref>see ''Chapman v. Scott'' (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690)</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under [[United States|U.S.]] [[Federal law]]. However, the [[Governor#United States|governors]] of most [[States of the United States|states]] have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of that conviction. Therefore, even if a person is granted a pardon, they must still disclose their conviction on any form where such information is required, although they may also disclose the fact that they received a pardon. In addition, most civil disabilities attendant upon a federal felony conviction, such as loss of the right to vote and hold state public office, are imposed by state rather than federal law, and also may be removed by state action. Because the federal pardon process is exacting and may be more time-consuming than analogous state procedures, pardon recipients may wish to consult with the appropriate authorities in the state of their residence regarding the procedures for restoring their state civil rights.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The power to grant pardons and reprieves is a [[royal prerogative]] of mercy of the [[British monarchs|monarch]] of the [[United Kingdom]]. It was traditionally in the absolute power of the monarch to pardon and release an individual who had been convicted of a crime from that conviction and its intended penalty. Pardons were granted to many in the eighteenth century on condition that the convicted felons accept transportation overseas, such as to [[Australia]]. The first ''General Pardon'' in England was issued in celebration of the [[coronation]] of [[Edward III of England|Edward III]] in 1327. In 2006, all British [[soldier]]s [[executed]] for [[cowardice]] during [[World War I]] were pardoned, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions. (See [[Armed Forces Act 2006]], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/16/npardon16.xml].)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There are significant procedural differences in the present use of the royal pardon, however. Today, the monarch may only grant a pardon on the advice of the [[Home Secretary]] or the [[First Minister of Scotland]] (or the [[Defense Secretary]] in military justice cases), and the policy of the Home Office and Scottish Executive is only to grant pardons to those who are "morally" innocent of the offense (as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by misapplication of the law). Pardons are generally no longer issued prior to conviction, but only after conviction. A pardon is no longer considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed. Use of the prerogative is now rare, particularly since the establishment of the [[Criminal Cases Review Commission]] and [[Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission]], which provide a statutory remedy for miscarriages of justice.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To this end, the granting of pardons is very rare and the vast majority of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Overturned_convictions_in_the_United_Kingdom recognized miscarriages of justice] were decided upon by the courts. During the [[Birmingham Six]] controversy, then Home Secretary [[Douglas Hurd]] stressed that he could only make the decision for a pardon if he was "convinced of innocence," which at the time he was not<ref>[http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1987/jan/20/bombing-court-cases Bombing (Court Cases) (Hansard, January 20, 1987)]</ref>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | One notorious recent case was that of the drug smugglers John Haase and Paul Bennett. They were pardoned in July 1996 from 18-year sentences, having served 10 months, by the then-Home Secretary [[Michael Howard]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7671946.stm How a home secretary was hoodwinked]</ref>. This was intended to reward them for information they gave to the authorities, but there was speculation about Howard’s motives<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200502140015 New Statesman article on Howard]</ref>. In 2008, they were given 20- and 22-year sentences after it was found that their information was unreliable.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | According to the [[Act of Settlement 1701|Act of Settlement]], a pardon can not prevent a person from being [[impeachment|impeached]] by Parliament, but may rescind the penalty following conviction. In [[England and Wales]], nobody may be pardoned for an offence under section 11 of the [[Habeas Corpus Act 1679]] (unlawfully transporting prisoners out of England and Wales). [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1518495&ActiveTextDocId=1518509&filesize=7428]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Canada====
| |
| − | Canadian Pardons are considered by the [[National Parole Board (Canada)|National Parole Board]] under the [[Criminal Records Act]], the [[Criminal Code of Canada|Criminal Code]] and several other laws. For Criminal Code crimes there is a three-year waiting period for [[summary offence#Canada|summary offence]]s, and a five-year waiting period for [[indictable offence]]s. The waiting period commences after the sentence is completed. In principle, the information provided above is correct but most convictions have additional time allocated due to court imposed fines, probation, and other convictions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Completing a Canadian pardon application is a complex and time-consuming process, and any error in the application may cause needless and costly delays. Processing time for each application depends on whether it qualifies as an emergency. For regular applications, the typical process can take a year, or more. Emergency Pardons are difficult to obtain, and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the National Parole Board. Once pardoned, a [[criminal record]]s search for that individual reveals "no record."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In Canada, clemency is granted by the [[Governor-General of Canada]] or the [[Governor in Council]] (the federal cabinet) under the [[Royal Prerogative]] of Mercy. Applications are also made to the National Parole Board, as in pardons, but clemency may involve the [[commutation (law)|commutation]] of a sentence, or the remission of all or part of the sentence, a respite from the sentence (for a medical condition), or a relief from a prohibition (e.g., to allow someone to drive that has been prohibited from driving).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Ireland====
| |
| − | Under the [[Constitution of Ireland]] Art 13 Sec 6, the [[President of Ireland]] can pardon convicted criminals "''The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President, but such power of commutation or remission may also be conferred by law on other authorities''."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====France====
| |
| − | [[Image:Pierre-Narcisse Guérin Napoleon Pardoning the Rebels at Cairo.jpeg|thumb|200 px|Napoleon Pardoning the Rebels at Cairo; Pierre-Narcisse Guérin, 1808.]]
| |
| − | Pardons and acts of clemency ''(grâces)'' are granted by the [[President of France]], who, ultimately, is the sole judge of the propriety of the measure. It is a prerogative of the President which is directly inherited from that of the Kings of France. The convicted person sends a request for pardon to the President of the Republic. The [[prosecutor]] of the court that pronounced the verdict reports on the case, and the case goes to the [[Justice Minister of France|Ministry of Justice]]'s directorate of criminal affairs and pardons for further consideration.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If granted, the [[decree]] of pardon is signed by the President, the [[Prime Minister of France|Prime Minister]], the Minister of Justice and possibly other ministers involved in the consideration of the case. It is not published in the ''[[Journal Officiel de la République Française|Journal Officiel]]''.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The decree may spare the applicant from serving the balance of his or her sentence, or commute the sentence to a lesser one. It does not suppress the right for the victim of the crime to obtain compensation for the [[damages]] it suffered, and does not erase the condemnation from the [[criminal record]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | When the [[death penalty]] was in force in France, almost all capital sentences resulted in a presidential review for a possible clemency. Sentenced criminals were routinely given a sufficient delay before execution so that their requests for clemency could be examined. If granted, clemency would usually entail a commutation to a [[life sentence]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[Parliament of France]], on occasions, grants [[amnesty]]. This is a different concept and procedure from that described above, although the phrase "presidential amnesty" ''(amnistie présidentielle)'' is sometimes pejoratively applied to some acts of parliament traditionally voted upon after a presidential election, granting amnesty for minor crimes.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Germany====
| |
| − | Similar to the United States, the right to grant pardons in [[Germany]] is divided between the federal and the state level. Federal jurisdiction in matters of criminal law is mostly restricted to appeals against decisions of state courts. Only "political" crimes like treason or terrorism are tried on behalf the federal government by the highest state courts. Accordingly, the category of persons eligible for a federal pardon is rather narrow. The right to grant a federal pardon lies in the office of the [[President of Germany]], but he or she can transfer this power to other persons, such as the chancellor or the minister of justice. In early 2007, there was a widespread public discussion about the granting of pardons in Germany after convicted [[Red Army Faction]] terrorist [[Christian Klar]], serving a six times life imprisonment sentence since 1982 and not eligible for parole until at least 2009, filed a petition for pardon. President [[Horst Köhler]] ultimately denied his request.
| |
| − | For all other (and therefore the vast majority of) convicts, pardons are in the jurisdiction of the states. In some states it is granted by the respective cabinet, but in most states the state constitution vests the authority in the state prime minister. As on the federal level, the authority may be transferred.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Amnesty]] can be granted only by federal law.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Switzerland===
| |
| − | In [[Switzerland]], pardons may be granted by the [[Swiss Federal Assembly]] for crimes prosecuted by the [[Federal administration of Switzerland|federal authorities]]. For crimes under [[Cantons of Switzerland|cantonal jurisdiction]], cantonal law designates the authority competent to grant pardons (if any). In most cantons, the cantonal parliament may pardon felonies, and the cantonal government may pardon [[misdemeanor]]s and minor infractions.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Italy===
| |
| − | In [[Italy]], the [[President of the Italian Republic|President of the Republic]] may “ ... grant pardons, or commute punishments ...” according to article 87 of the [[Italian Constitution]]. Like other acts of the president, the pardon requires the countersignature of the competent government minister. The [[Constitutional Court of Italy]] has ruled that the Minister of Justice is obliged to sign acts of pardon. <ref>http://tripatlas.com/Pardon</ref> The pardon may remove the punishment altogether or change its form. Unless the decree of pardon states otherwise, the pardon does not remove any incidental effects of a criminal conviction, such as a mention in a certificate of conduct (174 c.p.).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | According to article 79 of the Italian Constitution, a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament may grant amnesty (article 151 c.p.) and pardons (article 174 c.p.).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Poland===
| |
| − | In [[Poland]], the [[President of the Republic of Poland|President]] is granted the right of pardon by Article 133 of the [[Constitution of the Republic of Poland]]. As for October 2008, 7,819 people were pardoned, while 3,046 appeals were declined.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | *[[Lech Wałęsa]]
| |
| − | **approved - 3,454
| |
| − | **declined - 384
| |
| − | *[[Aleksander Kwaśniewski]]
| |
| − | **approved - 3,295 (the first term); 795 (the second term); total - 4,090
| |
| − | **declined - 993 (the first term); 1,317 (the second term); total - 2,310
| |
| − | *[[Lech Kaczyński]] (until October 2007)
| |
| − | **approved - 77
| |
| − | **declined - 550
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Greece====
| |
| − | The [[Constitution of Greece]] grants the power of pardon to the President of the Republic (Art. 47, § 1). He can pardon, commute, or remit punishment imposed by any court, on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and after receiving the opinion (not the consent necessarily) of the Pardon Committee.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Russia===
| |
| − | The [[President of the Russian Federation]] is granted the right of pardon by Article 89 of the [[Constitution of the Russian Federation]]. The Pardon Committee manages lists of people eligible for pardon and directs them to the President for signing. While President [[Boris Yeltsin]] frequently used his power of pardon, his successor [[Vladimir Putin]] was much more hesitant; in the final years of his presidency he did not grant pardons at all.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===South Africa===
| |
| − | Under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of [[South Africa]], 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), the President of the Republic of South Africa is responsible for pardoning or reprieving offenders. This power of the president is only exercised in highly exceptional cases.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | To pardon a person is to forgive a person for his/her deeds. The pardon process is therefore not available to persons who maintain their innocence and is not an advanced form of appeal procedure.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Pardon is only granted for minor offenses after a period of 10 years has elapsed since the relevant conviction.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | For many serious offenses (for example if the relevant court viewed the offence in such a serious light that direct imprisonment was imposed), pardon will not be granted even if more than 10 years have elapsed since the conviction.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Hong Kong====
| |
| − | Prior to the [[Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong|handover of Hong Kong to China]] in 1997, the power of pardon was a [[royal prerogative]] of mercy of the [[British monarchs|monarch]] of the [[United Kingdom]]. This was used and cited the most often in cases of inmates who had been given the [[death penalty]]: from 1965 to 1993 (when the death penalty was formally abolished) those who were sentenced to death were automatically commuted to life imprisonment under the Royal Prerogative.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Since the handover, the [[Chief Executive of Hong Kong]] now exercises the power to grant pardons and commute penalties under section 12 of article 48 [[Basic Law of Hong Kong]].
| |
| − | "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions... To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====India====
| |
| − | Under the [[Constitution of India]] (Article 72), the [[President of India]] can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. A similar & parallel power vests in the [[Governors of India|Governors of each State]] under Article 161.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | However, it is important to note that India has a unitary structure of government and there is no body of state law. All crimes are crimes against the Union of India. Therefore, a convention has developed that the Governor's powers is exercised for only minor offenses, while requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the Union Territories are deferred to the President.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Both the President and Governor are bound by the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers & hence the exercise of this power is of an executive character. It is therefore subject to Judicial Review (Maru Ram v Union of India, confirmed by Kehar Singh vs Union of India,1989).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Iran====
| |
| − | In the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]], the [[Supreme Leader of Iran|Supreme Leader]] has the power to pardon and offer clemency under [[wikisource:Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran#Article 110|Article 110, § 1, §§ 11]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ====Israel====
| |
| − | In [[Israel]] the [[President of Israel]] has the power to pardon criminals or give them clemency. The pardon is given following a recommendation by the [[Justice Minister of Israel|Minister of Justice]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | After the [[Kav 300 affair]] President [[Chaim Herzog]] issued a pardon to four members of the [[Shin Bet]] prior to them being [[Indictment|indicted]]. This unusual act was the first of its kind in Israel.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Social issues==
| |
| − | The notion of [[forgiveness]] is most often considered a private matter between individuals, as well often being thought of as an action taken by weak people, meaning those who do not have the ability to get even or take [[revenge]]. Indeed, a person who forgives another might even be seen as a [[coward]]. Forgiveness is often viewed as unrelated to greater [[social issues]] or those social concerns that impact the lives of many people. This despite the fact that individuals seem to enjoy being in the position to judge others. However, when forgiveness is practiced by a [[public official]] in the form of a pardon or reprieve, then social concerns invariably come into play.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A key social component of forgiveness is that to forgive—or granting a pardon or reprieve—does not offset the need for [[punishment]] and [[recompense]]. However, the notion of forgiveness is intimately connected to the ideas of [[repentance]] and [[reconciliation]]. In the American legal system, among others, society has stressed the [[rehabilitation]] of the wrong doer, even after pardoning or recompense occurs. Although it is important to uphold the [[rule of law]] and to prevent the miscarriage of justice, [[society]] also seeks to avoid the rush to [[judgment]]. Whenever an act of pardoning occurs, public [[debate]] invariably occurs on these issues, and others.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Another publicly debated consideration is whether pardoning someone or granting a reprieve can change the [[behavior]] of the forgiven individual. Just as [[capital punishment]] has been shown not to have a significant effect on deterring [[capital crime]]s, there is no proven cause-effect relationship between the act of pardoning and future criminality. For this reason, social activists insist that rehabilitation and reconciliation is the best solution for discouraging future criminal behavior. While for some, the act of pardoning the wrong doer is more effective than [[punishment]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Among those who see some legitimate use for the power to pardon in some cases, there are those who see it as being susceptible to abuse if applied inconsistently, selectively, arbitrarily, or without strict, publicly accessible guidelines. The principle of the [[Rule of Law]] is intended to be a safeguard against such arbitrary governance. The 'rule of law', in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. [[Thomas Paine]] stated in his pamphlet ''[[Common Sense (pamphlet)|Common Sense]]'' (1776): "For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Notable pardons==
| |
| − | [[Image:Four Presidents.jpg|thumb|President Ronald Reagan is joined by former Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, October 8, 1981.]]
| |
| − | *In 1794, [[George Washington]] pardoned the leaders of the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], a [[Pennsylvania]] protest against federal taxes on "spirits."
| |
| − | *In 1799, [[John Adams]] pardoned participants in the [[Fries Uprising]], a Pennsylvania protest against federal property taxes.
| |
| − | *In 1869, [[Andrew Johnson]] pardoned [[Samuel Mudd]], a doctor who treated the broken leg of Abraham Lincoln's assassin, [[John Wilkes Booth]].
| |
| − | *In 1971, [[Richard Nixon]] commuted the sentence of union leader [[Jimmy Hoffa]], who had been convicted of jury tampering and fraud.
| |
| − | [[Image:Iva Toguri.jpg|thumb|right|Iva Toguri D'Aquino|Iva Toguri ("Tokyo Rose")]]
| |
| − | [[Image:Hearst-hibernia-yell.jpg|thumb|Patty Hearst at the Hibernia bank, San Francisco, 15 April 1974.]]
| |
| − | *In 1974, [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon, preempting any conviction of [[Watergate]]-related crimes. In a televised broadcast to the nation, Ford explained that he felt the pardon was in the best interests of the [[country]] and that the Nixon family's situation "is an American tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must."<ref name="pardonspeech2">{{cite web | last = Ford | first = Gerald | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = [[1974-09-08]] | url = http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/ford.htm| title =Gerald R. Ford Pardoning Richard Nixon | format = | work = Great Speeches Collection| publisher = The History Place | accessdate = 2006-12-30}}</ref>
| |
| − | *In 1977, Ford pardoned "[[Tokyo Rose]]" ([[Iva Toguri]]), an American forced to broadcast propaganda to Allied troops in [[Japan]] during [[World War II]].
| |
| − | *In 1979, [[Jimmy Carter]] commuted [[Patricia Hearst]]'s armed-robbery sentence. She was pardoned by [[Bill Clinton]] in 2001.
| |
| − | *In 1989, [[Ronald Reagan]] pardoned [[New York Yankees]] owner [[George Steinbrenner]] for making illegal contributions to Nixon's re-election campaign in 1972.
| |
| − | *In 1992, [[George H.W. Bush]] pardoned six defendants in the [[Iran-contra]] investigation, including former Defense Decretary [[Caspar Weinberger]] and former national security adviser [[Robert McFarlane]].
| |
| − | *In 2001, Clinton pardoned fugitive billionaire [[Marc Rich]], his half-brother [[Roger Clinton]], and [[Susan McDougal]], who went to jail for refusing to answer questions about Clinton's [[Whitewater]] dealings.
| |
| − | *In 2002, 11 rebel ethnic Albanian fighters have been granted pardons by the Macedonian President [[Boris Trajkovski]]. The amnesty was part of a Western-backed [[peace plan]], meant to end an [[insurgency]] by ethnic Albanian [[guerrilla]]s.
| |
| − | *In 2007, five [[Bulgarian]] [[nurses]] and a [[Palestinian]] [[doctor]] were pardoned by Bulgarian President [[Georgi Parvanov]] on arrival in [[Sofia]], after spending eight-and-a-half years in [[prison]] in [[Libya]]. The medics were sentenced to life in prison in Libya for contaminating children with the [[AIDS]] virus
| |
| − | *in 2008, Chadian President [[Idriss Deby]] pardoned six French nationals found guilty in 2007 of abducting more than 100 children from eastern [[Chad]] in what they called a [[humanitarian]] mission.
| |
| − | *In 2008, the [[Swiss]] [[government]] pardoned [[Anna Goeldi]] 226 years after she was beheaded for being a [[witch]]. Goeldi was the last [[person]] in [[Europe]] to be executed for [[witchcraft]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Notes==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | *Crouch, Jeffrey P. ''The Presidential Pardon Power''. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2008. {{OCLC|263428239}}
| |
| − | *Dressler, Joshua (2002). ''Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice''. New York: Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0028653198
| |
| − | *National Government Publication (2002). ''Justice Undone: Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House: Second Report by the United States Congress, House Committee on Government Reform''. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O. OCLC 49871132
| |
| − | *Sarat, Austion, and Hussain, Nasser (2007). ''Forgiveness, Mercy, and Clemency''. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804753326
| |
| − | *Sirica (1979). ''To Set the Record Straight: The Break-in, the Tapes, the Conspirators, the Pardon''. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0393012347
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==External links==
| |
| − | * [http://www.npb-cnlc.gc.ca/pardons/pardon_e.htm Pardon application for Canada]
| |
| − | * [http://www.cjpf.org/clemency/clemencystates.html List of pardon/clemency policies for various U.S. states]
| |
| − | * [http://pardonpower.com Pardon Power Blog]
| |
| − | * [http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/ USDOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney]
| |
| − | * {{cite journal
| |
| − | |first=Alan M.
| |
| − | |last=Dershowitz
| |
| − | |authorlink=Alan M. Dershowitz
| |
| − | |year=1989
| |
| − | |month=July 16
| |
| − | |title= What's Mercy Got To Do With It?
| |
| − | |journal=[[New York Times]]
| |
| − | |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2DA103AF935A25754C0A96F948260
| |
| − | }} Review of the book, Pardons: Justice, Mercy, and the Public Interest by [[Kathleen Dean Moore]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{Credits|Pardon|260095824|}}
| |
