Executive clemency is assumed to be a mechanism to correct miscarriages of justice brought about by the criminal justice system, yet little empirical research exists to confirm this assumption. This research study examined the types of rationales cited in 799 cases of executive clemency from six states from 2005 to 2012. Rationales based upon retributive philosophies, in which a miscarriage of justice was cited, were further analyzed. This analysis revealed that only seven percent of all clemency decisions from the examined states cited retributive rationales. Of the fifty-six grants of clemency that cited retributive rationales, most were granted in the forms of pardons. The analysis indicated that executive clemency is utilized as a mechanism to correct injustices, specifically in cases of innocence. This study concludes with a discussion of policy implications and the reliance on executive clemency as a fail-safe to the criminal justice system.

The war in Vietnam divided America into two groups, those who supported the war and those who opposed. At wars end, the divisions did not disappear. Instead, the nation was split on the question of amnesty for draft and military offenders who avoided service during the war. Gerald R. Ford, upon his ascendancy to the presidency, was left with the monumental task of resolving the fate of draft and military offenders and ushering in an era of unification and reconciliation by answering the amnesty question. This study examines the factors surrounding President Ford’s decision to extend clemency to draft and military offenders of the Vietnam era. President Ford was faced with the need to heal the nation, but confined by the possibility of exacerbating the divisions within America regarding amnesty. In deciding to extend clemency, Ford was influenced by draft and military offenders themselves, the debate on amnesty, including its coverage in news media and the symbolic nature of the debate, public opinion and Ford’s personal and political influences. These influences led Ford towards a middle path in his attempt to resolve the issue of amnesty. Ford’s clemency program offered conditional amnesty, a concept supported by the majority of Americans, to draft and military offenders in order to provide them with an opportunity to return and contribute to the rebuilding of America in the post-Vietnam era and begin the healing process by trying to appease all considering the amnesty question.

The war in Vietnam divided America into two groups, those who supported the war and those who opposed. At wars end, the divisions did not disappear. Instead, the nation was split on the question of amnesty for draft and military offenders who avoided service during the war. Gerald R. Ford, upon his ascendancy to the presidency, was left with the monumental task of resolving the fate of draft and military offenders and ushering in an era of unification and reconciliation by answering the amnesty question. This study examines the factors surrounding President Ford’s decision to extend clemency to draft and military offenders of the Vietnam era. President Ford was faced with the need to heal the nation, but confined by the possibility of exacerbating the divisions within America regarding amnesty. In deciding to extend clemency, Ford was influenced by draft and military offenders themselves, the debate on amnesty, including its coverage in news media and the symbolic nature of the debate, public opinion and Ford’s personal and political influences. These influences led Ford towards a middle path in his attempt to resolve the issue of amnesty. Ford’s clemency program offered conditional amnesty, a concept supported by the majority of Americans, to draft and military offenders in order to provide them with an opportunity to return and contribute to the rebuilding of America in the post-Vietnam era and begin the healing process by trying to appease all considering the amnesty question.

Although clemency is often an offender's final prospect to avoid execution within the death penalty context, prior research concerning clemency decisions remains limited by the fact that it is often atheoretical and researchers have used data more than a decade old. This study specifically placed clemency decisions within a focal concerns framework and examined death row inmates who were either executed or granted clemency between 1984 and 2008. This study used logistic regression as its primary modeling technique to examine whether measures of focal concerns theory were predictive of clemency decisions. While the current measures for offender blameworthiness and protection of the community were not found to influence clemency decisions, practical constraints and consequences measured by political factors and regional location along with offender characteristics were found to predict such decisions. Female offenders, non-white offenders, and offenders with lower educational levels were most likely to be granted clemency. Whereas lame duck governors were more likely to grant clemency, governors in southern states were less likely to grant clemency. The odds of clemency were reduced with each year an offender served.

In this study I propose to examine the usage of the pardoning power of the president as it relates to four aspects: the Nixon pardon, political advancement, defense of the person and his party, and independent private gain through the issuance of pardons. These aspects are all a part of the modern day usage of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. The study relies primarily on statements made from the presidents involved, as well as statements made by judicial persons involved in the pardoning process. The study is also drawn from direct investigations, both private and governmental. A good number of secondary sources were used also to establish the historical setting and round out the story where inconsistencies developed. The study concludes that presidents since Gerald Ford have used his pardon of Richard Nixon as a precedent to allow them a political alibi for questionable endeavors.

In 1974, President Ford began the arduous task of healing the wounds sustained by the United States during the Vietnam War. His controversial clemency plan gave those who had either deserted the military or those who evaded the draft the chance to earn their way back into American society. President Ford was willing to face this opposition to move the country closer to resolving an issue that was tearing the nation apart. In the applications to Ford’s Presidential Clemency Board, thousands of deserters and evaders reveal their motivations, and in doing so present a large body of evidence that contradicts the usual perception of the Vietnam “draft-dodger” and deserter. In the transition between the hardline anti-clemency position of President Nixon, and the full clemency position of President Carter, Ford took strong measures to achieve resolution, and the evidence herein could suggest a reappraisal of the Ford presidency.

No description available.

The presidential pardon power is an oft-overlooked political institution that seems to be perceived as being innocuous and irrelevant to larger political concerns. This research examines the pardons issued by President Donald J. Trump in an effort to evaluate whether they align with constitutional expectations regarding the use of this unrestricted presidential power. Dr. Jeffrey Crouch, a leading scholar on the subject, has demonstrated that the pardon power was intended to be used as a disinterested act of grace or an act in the public interest. A close survey of President Trump’s use of this power shows that many of his pardons do not meet these standards. Instead, President Trump often used pardons to protect political allies or favor personal friends. In doing so, Mr. Trump derogated from the Constitution and elevated allies and friends above the rule of law. The implications of this usage for American democracy are spelled out.

Henri IV met fin aux guerres civiles de religion en 1598 en décrétant la mémoire des troubles « éteinte et assoupie, comme de chose non advenue ». Comment se positionne le théâtre français par rapport à cette politique d’oubli, quel espace mémoriel offre-t-il ? Nous considérons la tragédie qui s’écrit entre 1629, fin officielle des guerres civiles et date de la dernière tragédie d’actualité, et 1653, fin de la Fronde et d’une nouvelle menace de division intérieure. La tragédie semble se détourner d’une actualité trop déchirante, en ce sens elle oublie, mais elle se trouve pourtant travaillée par cet oublié. En partant du plus visible : la mise en scène des princes cléments, nous montrons que cette forme d’oubli officiel et volontaire est très représentée sur la scène tragique. Mais l’oublié est aussi ce qui travaille les tragédies dans la représentation qu’elles offrent du conflit familial qui fournit bon nombre des sujets tragiques du temps. La tragédie fait donc affleurer le présent du passé, la mémoire de la division, par le détour allégorique. À un théâtre mélancolique où le passé pèse sur le présent de tout son poids s’oppose un théâtre de relance historique dans lequel peut s’ouvrir un avenir nouveau. Enfin, l’oubli apparaît dans ces années de théorisation dramatique comme un idéal pour le spectateur absorbé dans le spectacle, et comme une menace quand il conduit à l’oubli de soi chez certains comédiens ou spectateurs naïfs. L’oubli, dans son équivocité fondamentale, permet donc d’articuler théorie politique, dramatique et images scéniques, dans un premier dix-septième siècle où l’on ne cesse de penser la violence qui menace le lien et la communauté au risque de la division. / Henry the 4th ends the religious civil wars in 1598 by ordaining that the remembrance of troubles is « extinguished and abated, like something that did not occur ». How does French drama stand in relation with this politics of oblivion ? What kind of memorial space does it open ? We consider tragedies written between 1629, official end of the troubles and date of publication of the last usual times tragedy, and 1653, end of a new internal division threat embodied by the Fronde. In appearance, tragedy seems to forget a harrowing recent past by turning away from it, but it is simultaneously deeply influenced by what has been forgotten. By starting with what is most visible, the staging of merciful princes, we demonstrate that this official and voluntary oblivion is very much represented on the tragic stage. But forgetfulness is also influencing tragedies in their displaying of family feuds, a frequent tragic topic of these times. Tragedy thus makes surface the present of the past, the memory of division, through allegoric detours. A double-face drama emerges : one of melancholy in which past weighs on present, one of historical reset with an ouverture for renascent prospects. Last, in these years of dramatic theorization, forgetfulness appears to be, for a spectator absorbed by the play, an ideal, as well as it can drag the most naive of them and some comedians into forgetting about their selves in denial of reality and confusion with fiction. The fundamental ambiguity of forgetfulness enables to articulate political theory, drama and staging, in a 17th century where violence is thought to threaten the community with division.

No description available.