Yesterday, in my post on Mike Huckabee and commutations, I wrote:
[T]he politically prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any leniency—ever. Other governors with their sights set on higher offices had learned that doing nothing—even to correct obvious instances of injustice—was unlikely to cause any long-term political damage. Keeping an innocent man in prison is less harmful to an ambitious politician than freeing someone who may commit other crimes.
Today, on the Laura Ingraham Show, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty admits that he follows the politically prudent tactic of simply refusing to grant any leniency—ever.
In Minnesota, I don’t think I’ve ever voted for clemency. We’ve given out pardons for things after everybody has served out their term, but again, usually for more minor offenses. But clemency, certainly not. Commutation of sentence, certainly not.
Now what Gov. Pawlenty probably meant is that the the criminal justice system in Minnesota is so perfect that clemency and commutation are never, ever needed because no one ever gets an unjust sentence, no relevant facts are ever provided after sentencing that should be considered, etc. The reason no clemency is granted, in other words, is because it is never needed to correct an injustice.
Surely that is what he is saying because otherwise it might appear that he is shirking his duties as governor and prejudging all cases before he ever examines them to see if an injustice needs to be rectified. I can’t imagine he would mean anything like, much less have the audacity to say it on a national radio program. To do so would suggest that he is merely a parody of a “law and order conservative” and has no comprehension of what justice requires.
The powers of clemency can be abused in two ways: by using the power too freely, as Gov. Huckabee appears to have done, or by refusing to consider movie downloads using them at all, as Gov. Pawlenty appears to do. Finding that balance is the reason we value prudence and judgement in our state executives. Perhaps somewhere in America there is a Republican governor who doesn’t suffer from either an excess of political compassion or of political cowardice. Maybe the GOP will find them before 2012.
December 1st, 2009 | 1:48 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by First Things, Joe Carter. Joe Carter said: Is Gov. Tim Pawlenty a political coward? http://bit.ly/57sJCy [...]
December 1st, 2009 | 2:54 pm
“excess of political compassion or political cowardice”
Come on, Joe. You cannot characize the problem as simply as that. The fact is that Huck looked at this 16 year-old kid who got 84 years and thought it was excessive. Why do you assume he gave in to “political compassion,” whatever that is?
Secondly, how do you judge a sentence to be excessive? In this particluar case, the man appears to have been a demon-posessed monster. No sentence could possibly have been exessive. It is a matter of protecting the public.
My guess is that you would have commuted his sentence as well.
December 1st, 2009 | 3:04 pm
Lisa Why do you assume he gave in to “political compassion,” whatever that is?
Oh, I agree that the Clemmons case is not a good example of “political compassion.” I don’t even remember looking at those records, but if I had I suspect I would have thought he did the right thing in that situation. The fact that the consequences turned out so horribly shouldn’t reflect poorly on his judgement (though it unfortunately will).
The real problem for Huckabee is that because of the sheer number of commutations, the odds are that there will be more situations like this (though hopefully not so tragic). If he were to become the Republican candidate in 2012 the media would go over all of the cases with a fine-toothed comb and would likely find numerous examples of people who were given leniency and later committed more crimes.
December 1st, 2009 | 4:56 pm
From Politico:
What Governor Huckabee apparently does not understand is that the questions raised about his leadership concern whether his judgments as Arkansas’ chief executive helped bring about the grief these families are now suffering. So, in reality, Gov. Huckabee wants us to focus on the grief but only insofar as it does not involve raising inquires about his responsibility. He’s a Peter Pan in an Osama Bin Laden world.
December 1st, 2009 | 5:55 pm
To claim or imply a moral equivalence between excessive use of the power of clemency and the refusal to use it is logically flawed. To be subject to clemency one must have been convicted of an offense. Giving the checks and balances in our leagal system, it is safe to assume that one found guilty is actually that. No legal system is perfect (ours certainly included) but to claim the failure to grant clemency is morally the same as overusing it glosses over a very important fact.
December 1st, 2009 | 6:10 pm
Dan To claim or imply a moral equivalence between excessive use of the power of clemency and the refusal to use it is logically flawed.
Why? They are both failures to do justice.
Giving the checks and balances in our leagal system, it is safe to assume that one found guilty is actually that.
Surely you can’t be serious?
Also, clemency isn’t merely about whether a criminal is guilty. I can be guilty of stealing a loaf of bread but if I’m sentenced to 100 years for the crime, an injustice has been committed. Yet if I received such a sentence in MN, Gov. Pawlenty is essentially saying, “tough luck chump.”
December 1st, 2009 | 11:25 pm
I did not hear the program with Governor Pawlenty, so perhaps I am missing both relevant information and the tone in which he made his comments, but you cite him saying “In Minnesota, I don’t think I’ve ever voted for clemency.” Does this indicate he would never vote for clemency, or simply, as the citation states, that he has never voted for clemency? Is it possible that a case has never crossed his desk worthy, at least to his mind, of clemency? I know miscarriages of justice take place, but I am not aware of the frequency with which they occur, either in Minnesota or in other states. Your reading, that Pawlenty’s comments indicate that “the the criminal justice system in Minnesota is so perfect that clemency and commutation are never, ever needed,” seems an interpretation based on suspicion and not goodwill. I will, however, overturn my comment if new evidence comes to light. To this point, though, I have never overturned a comment I have made on this website.
December 1st, 2009 | 11:58 pm
John Does this indicate he would never vote for clemency, or simply, as the citation states, that he has never voted for clemency?
Let’s look at what he said: “But clemency, certainly not. Commutation of sentence, certainly not.”
The phrase “certainly not” seems rather declarative to me. Pawlenty seems to be saying that he neither has nor will grant clemency or commutation.
I know miscarriages of justice take place, but I am not aware of the frequency with which they occur, either in Minnesota or in other states.
During the time Huckabee was governor he had an average of 1200 applications a year. AK is smaller than MN, but let’s assume the rate is the same. Pawlenty has been governor for seven years so we can expect that about 8400 applications to have been submitted for his review.
What are the odds that 0 of those 8400 were deserving? I don’t know. But I’d sure be curious if Pawlenty seriously reviewed each one and rejected them for lacking merit or if he simply rejected them because he doesn’t believe in exercising the responsibility.
December 2nd, 2009 | 12:23 am
Meh. Anybody who knows anything about MN, knows that the problem is not sentences that are too harsh, but sentences that are too light. We don’t have the murder rate that other places have (There have only been 19 murders this year in Minneapolis, the major city in the state, thus far). Also, we don’t have the death penalty. Pawlenty did spend a considerable amount of time and resources developing a policy for Level III sex offenders so it’s not like he hasn’t taken an interest in criminal justice.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:14 am
“What are the odds that 0 of those 8400 were deserving? I don’t know. But I’d sure be curious if Pawlenty seriously reviewed each one and rejected them for lacking merit”
This must be an overstatement – no one person could properly review this many cases and do anything else. If you are right, the problem isn’t that no appeal is deserving, the problem is a practical one – how does one seriously review each one and leave time for everything else?
(The question is not merely rhetorical – I am actually curious to how, if at all, this works.)
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:29 am
Pat This must be an overstatement – no one person could properly review this many cases and do anything else.
True, but its not the governor’s job to review every single one, only the one’s that have been flagged as worthy of his consideration.
There is already someone in MN that is tasked with this pre-screening role. But let’s assume there wasn’t. What would it require?
In 2009 there are 250 work days. If there are 1200 cases to reviews that comes to an average of 5 cases a day. One person could easily do that job all by themselves (though since its the government, no doubt they have a dozen people doing the task).
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:42 am
The purpose of executive power of pardon is not merely to catch miscarriages of justice but also to take into account extenuating circumstances that are not actually written into law because they are very rare or couldn’t be foreseen; so not only is the Minnesota court system infallible, its legislature must be omniscient, having taken every possible circumstance into account.
December 2nd, 2009 | 9:07 am
Mr. Carter: The number of clemency cases that crossed Huckabee’s desk can also be presumed the other way: If Huckabee is granting clemency at a much higher rate than other governors than it makes sense for lots more people to apply for clemency, whether they deserve it or not.
Also, you make a false analogy about stealing bread and receiving a 100 years. Stealing bread is a non-violent crime; what upsets people about Huckabee’s grants of clemency is the violent criminals whose sentences he was commuting. Stealing bread and rape and/or murder are apples and oranges.
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:28 pm
Since there is a dearth of information regarding certain particulars, i.e. how many that received commutation later committed serious crimes which would better help us to judge Huckabees judgement,it would seem that we are reduced to arguing over the principle of commutation and the proper criteria for its application.I think that all states have a provision for commutation(although I don’t know this) so it must be that the principle is widely accepted which leaves us with the criteria of application as a topic of dispute.No matter how simple or complicated this procedure might be at some point a person must make a decision based(we hope) on the information before him and his own qualities of discernment. At this point, armed as we are with our outrage at a known outcome, we are ready to pass judgement on Huckabees judgement. What is our criteria.What would be an acceptable rate of failure and at what level of crime. This we claim to know; if this was the only failure it would be one to many. So for the moment the answer to what an acceptable rate of failure is is zero. Gov. Pawlenty is right if this is what we demand but barring disclosure of outrageous behavior on Gov. Huckabees part (doubtful) or a quickening of this kind of brutal crime we are left with the unsettling idea that sometimes the difference between the right decision and the wrong one is razor thin. My impression of Gov. Huckabee is of a man for whom justice and compassion form, this side of heaven, an imperfect and necessary union. Too much of either is hell on earth.
December 2nd, 2009 | 7:32 pm
Buttercup67k,
I don’t think that Joe Carter ever condoned any of Gov. Huckabee’s clemency decisions; it seems that he was only pointing out an instance in which clemency would make sense, contra Gov. Pawlenty’s stance.
Also, I wonder what Gov. Perry of Texas is quite probably guilty of as far as justice is concerned – sloth, perhaps? Negligent homicide? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
I do hope that he never gets elected to public office again.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:39 pm
Steve: Pawlenty doesn’t state that he would never give clemency and so far, I’m not aware of a case in Minnesota where stealing bread got someone a 100 year sentence. I think Carter would be better playing that argument if Pawlenty had said he would never give clemency to any one at any time.
As far as the sad story you link to, I have not read the whole thing, yet. I did see that it was stated that a board in Texas had voted against clemency, not just the governor acting alone. The mother of the children also was convinced of the father’s guilt after reviewing the evidence for and against it. Obviously, that does not excuse the state executing an innocent man, if this was the case.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact