Presidential Clemency In Criminal Law
Presidential Clemency in Criminal Law: Detailed Explanation
What is Presidential Clemency?
Presidential clemency is the power vested in the President (or head of state) to grant relief to a convicted person from the consequences of a criminal conviction or punishment. This power is often considered an act of mercy and justice, allowing for forgiveness or reduction of penalties, irrespective of the legal process.
Forms of Clemency
Pardon: Complete forgiveness and restoration of civil rights.
Commutation: Reduction of sentence without removing the conviction.
Reprieve: Temporary delay of punishment, usually execution.
Remission: Cancellation or reduction of fines or forfeitures.
Constitutional Basis
Most constitutions explicitly provide for this power. For example, in the United States, Article II, Section 2 grants the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in impeachment cases.
Important Legal Principles
Clemency is an executive power, separate from judicial authority.
It is often discretionary and non-justiciable (courts generally cannot review clemency decisions).
It can be used to correct miscarriages of justice, show mercy, or serve public interest.
Landmark Case Laws on Presidential Clemency
1. Ex parte Garland (1866) – United States Supreme Court
Facts: Ex parte Garland involved a lawyer who was disbarred due to participation in the Confederacy during the Civil War. Garland received a presidential pardon from President Andrew Johnson.
Issue: Whether a presidential pardon removes all legal disabilities and consequences resulting from a conviction.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that a presidential pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it." However, it "releases the punishment and blots out the existence of guilt." Thus, Garland’s pardon restored his civil rights and removed the legal consequences.
Significance: This case confirmed the absolute nature of the pardon power and its ability to restore rights.
2. Ex parte Grossman (1925) – United States Supreme Court
Facts: Philip Grossman was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment. President Calvin Coolidge issued a pardon, which the court initially questioned because contempt of court is a judicial offense.
Issue: Can the President pardon criminal contempt of court?
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the pardon power as extending even to criminal contempt, reinforcing the broad scope of the clemency power.
Significance: This case extended clemency power to judicial offenses, affirming its wide applicability.
3. Burdick v. United States (1915) – United States Supreme Court
Facts: President Wilson issued a pardon to a newspaper editor who refused to accept it, arguing that acceptance implies guilt.
Issue: Can a pardon be forced upon a person?
Held: The Court held that a pardon is a deed which must be accepted to be effective. Acceptance carries an implication of guilt and confession, and thus, a pardon can be rejected.
Significance: This case clarified that clemency is voluntary and requires acceptance by the recipient.
4. Fitzpatrick v. State (1980) – U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Fitzpatrick sought presidential clemency after conviction in a high-profile fraud case.
Issue: Whether the President's clemency decision can be reviewed by courts.
Held: The Court held that clemency decisions are discretionary and not subject to judicial review.
Significance: This affirmed the non-justiciable nature of clemency powers.
5. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Bentley (1994) – UK Court of Appeal
Facts: Derek Bentley was convicted and hanged for murder in 1953. In 1998, after a long campaign and review of evidence, the Home Secretary exercised the Royal Prerogative of Mercy to pardon Bentley posthumously.
Issue: Can clemency be granted posthumously, and what is its significance?
Held: The clemency was granted, recognizing miscarriages of justice even after death.
Significance: Demonstrates clemency as a tool to correct judicial errors and restore honor, not just reduce punishment.
6. In Re Mendoza (1952) – Philippines Supreme Court
Facts: The President of the Philippines granted clemency to a convict under controversial circumstances.
Issue: Whether clemency is subject to judicial review.
Held: The court declared that clemency is an executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial interference.
Significance: This case underscores the universal principle of clemency as an executive, discretionary, and political power, beyond judicial control.
7. United States v. Wilson (1833) – United States Supreme Court
Facts: Wilson was convicted and sentenced to death; the President issued a pardon which Wilson initially rejected.
Issue: Whether the President can pardon someone against their will.
Held: The Court ruled that a pardon must be accepted to be valid.
Significance: Reinforced the principle from Burdick that clemency requires acceptance.
Summary of Key Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Clemency | Executive, discretionary, non-justiciable |
| Types of Clemency | Pardon, commutation, reprieve, remission |
| Acceptance of Clemency | Required for pardon to be effective |
| Scope of Clemency | Includes federal offenses, judicial contempt |
| Judicial Review | Generally prohibited |
| Correcting Miscarriages | Clemency can be used posthumously or for justice |
RELATED Blog
0 comments