Pardon Hypocrisy
Some news stories are exploring previous statements by President Bush suggesting he would use the pardon power with great frequency and that he would respect the "process" for pardon applications. The logical conclusion to reach? Unless Bush is a hypocrite, he will not increase the number of pardons as his term ends (see commentary for March 14) and that he will not pardon Scooter Libby, who has not applied for a pardon and does not meet the Justice Department's "guidelines" for clemency applications (see commentary for March 12). How notable would Bush's hypocrisy be if we were to do both? Let's consider some other examples of two-faced clemency:
George Washington once argued that ignorance of the law was a "frivolous" plea in criminal cases, but granted his first pardon, in part, on the ground that the individual involved had not "informed himself" of the law.
Washington also pardoned the only two persons sentenced to hang as a result of the Whiskey Rebellion. Although one of them was clearly mentally deranged, Vice-President John Adams angrily vowed that he would have seen to it that the laws were more strictly enforced. Adams got his chance when, during his administration, three individuals were convicted for participation in Fries's Rebellion. Against the advice of his cabinet, Adams pardoned the "miserable Germans" in the last year of his term.
Before he was president, William Howard Taft argued that it was "necessary" for "wealthy criminals" to serve out their sentences. As president, he was notable for granting pardons to the wealthiest individuals the federal judicial system could convict.
Rutherford B. Hayes pardoned controversial author Ezra Heywood because he thought Heywood had been wrongly convicted for "obscenity." As far as Hayes was concerned, Heywood's material was objectionable and offensive, but not illegal. After complaints from religious leaders and his own wife, Hayes refused to "nullify the law" or "intrude" when persons were convicted of similar charges for similar behavior.
Grover Cleveland pardoned police lieutenant Michael Mullen, who placed over one hundred African-Americans in a Cincinnati jail simply to prevent them from voting. No one even bothered to file "fake" charges! Amazingly, the pardon was justified on the ground that many "first-class citizens" had signed a petition on Mullen's behalf and, afterward, it was revealed that some of the signatures were forged! But, later, Cleveland refused to pardon two individuals accused of vote fraud in Philadelphia calling their offense "barefaced and wicked." As he put it, he would not "interfere" with their sentence.
Andrew Johnson may be the biggest clemency hypocrite of them all. Sharply critical of Abraham Lincoln's extensions of mercy to the former Confederates, Johnson said the proper approach would be to "have them arrested and tried for treason" and "see that they suffer the penalty of the law at the hands of the executioner." As president, Johnson proceeded to break a 47-year old record for the number of individual pardons granted in a single day and extended Lincoln's post-War clemency program beyond the imaginations of the "Radical" Republicans in Congress. Johnson would later say that he was "glad" that he granted so many pardons and regretted only that he "had not pardoned more." Scholars often cite his use of clemency as the starting point for grumblings regarding impeachment.
Dwight Eisenhower's administration took Harry Truman to task for a handful of "controversial" last-minute pardons, some of which appeared questionable because they were not recommended by the U.S. Pardon Attorney. After the announcement of several bold, new, "more open" approaches to clemency, Eisenhower's eight year use of the pardon power remained as stealth as ever and, two days before he left office, he granted over one hundred pardons. It was more pardons than he had granted in any other single day for eight years, or a single month for that matter! A Washington columnist noted many of the pardons were supported by individual members of Congress.
Bill Clinton made several strong public statements (some before the United Nations) concerning the need to confront terrorism in an aggressive, efficient manner. He then granted pardons to members of F.A.L.N., an organization responsible for 130 bombings, millions of dollars in property damage, 6 deaths and hundreds of other injuries. Among the targets were a tavern and numerous department stores. Clinton also pardoned Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, associates of the Weather Underground. Evans was caught transporting weapons with false identification. Her apartment contained plans to bomb the War College and the Capitol. Rosenberg was found with over 700 pounds of dynamite.
It would quite easy to add to these examples, but perhaps more constructive at this point to go ahead and observe why there have been so many hypocritical presidents re the pardon power. Whatever their beliefs and perspectives, presidents cannot suspend time and space and hold all variables constant. The critic of pardons is not subject to the same pressures and constraints as the person actually responsible for exercising the power. Finally, presidential views of the pardon power are clearly filtered by both ideology and partisanship.
George Washington once argued that ignorance of the law was a "frivolous" plea in criminal cases, but granted his first pardon, in part, on the ground that the individual involved had not "informed himself" of the law.
Washington also pardoned the only two persons sentenced to hang as a result of the Whiskey Rebellion. Although one of them was clearly mentally deranged, Vice-President John Adams angrily vowed that he would have seen to it that the laws were more strictly enforced. Adams got his chance when, during his administration, three individuals were convicted for participation in Fries's Rebellion. Against the advice of his cabinet, Adams pardoned the "miserable Germans" in the last year of his term.
Before he was president, William Howard Taft argued that it was "necessary" for "wealthy criminals" to serve out their sentences. As president, he was notable for granting pardons to the wealthiest individuals the federal judicial system could convict.
Rutherford B. Hayes pardoned controversial author Ezra Heywood because he thought Heywood had been wrongly convicted for "obscenity." As far as Hayes was concerned, Heywood's material was objectionable and offensive, but not illegal. After complaints from religious leaders and his own wife, Hayes refused to "nullify the law" or "intrude" when persons were convicted of similar charges for similar behavior.
Grover Cleveland pardoned police lieutenant Michael Mullen, who placed over one hundred African-Americans in a Cincinnati jail simply to prevent them from voting. No one even bothered to file "fake" charges! Amazingly, the pardon was justified on the ground that many "first-class citizens" had signed a petition on Mullen's behalf and, afterward, it was revealed that some of the signatures were forged! But, later, Cleveland refused to pardon two individuals accused of vote fraud in Philadelphia calling their offense "barefaced and wicked." As he put it, he would not "interfere" with their sentence.
Andrew Johnson may be the biggest clemency hypocrite of them all. Sharply critical of Abraham Lincoln's extensions of mercy to the former Confederates, Johnson said the proper approach would be to "have them arrested and tried for treason" and "see that they suffer the penalty of the law at the hands of the executioner." As president, Johnson proceeded to break a 47-year old record for the number of individual pardons granted in a single day and extended Lincoln's post-War clemency program beyond the imaginations of the "Radical" Republicans in Congress. Johnson would later say that he was "glad" that he granted so many pardons and regretted only that he "had not pardoned more." Scholars often cite his use of clemency as the starting point for grumblings regarding impeachment.
Dwight Eisenhower's administration took Harry Truman to task for a handful of "controversial" last-minute pardons, some of which appeared questionable because they were not recommended by the U.S. Pardon Attorney. After the announcement of several bold, new, "more open" approaches to clemency, Eisenhower's eight year use of the pardon power remained as stealth as ever and, two days before he left office, he granted over one hundred pardons. It was more pardons than he had granted in any other single day for eight years, or a single month for that matter! A Washington columnist noted many of the pardons were supported by individual members of Congress.
Bill Clinton made several strong public statements (some before the United Nations) concerning the need to confront terrorism in an aggressive, efficient manner. He then granted pardons to members of F.A.L.N., an organization responsible for 130 bombings, millions of dollars in property damage, 6 deaths and hundreds of other injuries. Among the targets were a tavern and numerous department stores. Clinton also pardoned Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, associates of the Weather Underground. Evans was caught transporting weapons with false identification. Her apartment contained plans to bomb the War College and the Capitol. Rosenberg was found with over 700 pounds of dynamite.
It would quite easy to add to these examples, but perhaps more constructive at this point to go ahead and observe why there have been so many hypocritical presidents re the pardon power. Whatever their beliefs and perspectives, presidents cannot suspend time and space and hold all variables constant. The critic of pardons is not subject to the same pressures and constraints as the person actually responsible for exercising the power. Finally, presidential views of the pardon power are clearly filtered by both ideology and partisanship.
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 1:05 AM
<< Home