Judge Blocks Release Of Pardoned Inmates

M

MJS

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/4942106-Judge-blocks-release-of-pardoned-inmates/

JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi judge Wednesday evening issued a temporary injunction forbidding the release of any more prisoners pardoned or given clemency by outgoing Gov. Haley Barbour, whose actions created an uproar.
The pardons include four convicted murderers and a convicted armed robber who were released Sunday. The five now must contact prison officials on a daily basis as their fate is adjudicated.

The pardons are "a slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement and Gov. Barbour should be ashamed," said state Attorney General Jim Hood.
The process of releasing 21 other inmates has been halted, said Hood, who sought the court order.
Click to expand...

Good for the judge! What the hell was this Gov. thinking????
 
Any idea why the Governor would do such a thing?
 
Sukerkin said:
Any idea why the Governor would do such a thing?
Click to expand...

Because he's a jackass. LOL!

Seriously....it looks like this may be one reason:
"The four murderers who received full pardons last week — David Gatlin, Joseph Ozment, Charles Hooker and Anthony McCray — were cited in Green's order.
They were all serving life sentences and worked as inmate trusties at the governor's mansion, said Suzanne Singletary, spokeswoman for the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Trusties are inmates who can receive additional rights through good behavior."

however, further down in the article, it says that alot of them have been out of jail for a while, and the pardon would allow them to find employment.
 
Big Don said:
True. However, there should damn well be a check against it.
Click to expand...

Apparently, there is. Judicial branch trumped by executive, then judicial trumped back again. Guess it proves judicial holds the final card here. Funny, don't some people go on and on about judicial activism? Sounds like a classic case of it to me. Oh wait, judicial activism is only bad when liberals do it.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
Apparently, there is. Judicial branch trumped by executive, then judicial trumped back again. Guess it proves judicial holds the final card here. Funny, don't some people go on and on about judicial activism? Sounds like a classic case of it to me. Oh wait, judicial activism is only bad when liberals do it.
Click to expand...

What has really got lots of people confuse is the (R) behind Haley Barbour's name. The normal roles have been reversed in this case.
 
ballen0351 said:
Im not saying I agree with the pardons but its a power granted by the constitution so it should be honored.
Click to expand...

MS Constitution said:
In all criminal and penal cases, excepting those of treason and impeachment, the governor shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons, to remit fines, and in cases of forfeiture, to stay the collection until the end of the next session of the legislature, and by and with the consent of the senate to remit forfeitures. In cases of treason he shall have power to grant reprieves, and by and with consent of the senate, but may respite the sentence until the end of the next session of the legislature; but no pardon shall be granted before conviction; and in cases of felony, after conviction no pardon shall be granted until the applicant therefor shall have published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed, and in case there be no newspaper published in said county, then in an adjoining county, his petition for pardon, setting forth therein the reasons why such pardon should be granted.
Click to expand...

So, he has limitations on his power to pardon. His happy little pet criminals didn't satisfy the publication limitations, therefore, he has no power to pardon them.
 
What's the reasoning behind allowing politicians to pardon criminals? I know little about your legal systems so I was wondering where a politician fits in with the justice system.
 
Tez3 said:
What's the reasoning behind allowing politicians to pardon criminals? I know little about your legal systems so I was wondering where a politician fits in with the justice system.
Click to expand...
The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under federal law. However, the governors of most of the 50 states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law.
Click to expand...
IIRC, it came from English common law.The power to grant pardons and reprieves in the United Kingdom is known as the royal prerogative of mercy. 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 18th 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 in 1327. In 2006 all British soldiers executed for cowardice during World War I were pardoned, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions
 
Big Don said:
IIRC, it came from English common law.The power to grant pardons and reprieves in the United Kingdom is known as the royal prerogative of mercy. 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 18th 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 in 1327. In 2006 all British soldiers executed for cowardice during World War I were pardoned, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions
Click to expand...


Royal pardons are common in countries where there's royalty but we've never given the power to pardon common criminals to politicians, the soldiers could be pardoned because they belong to the Crown as opposed to the country however the fact they were given pardons caused controversy because in the act of pardoning them it implied they were guilty something campaigners were saying they didn't want, they wanted them exhonerated rather than pardoned. How though did the 'powers' that royalty come to have be given to politicians in a republic?
 
Tez3 said:
Royal pardons are common in countries where there's royalty but we've never given the power to pardon common criminals to politicians, the soldiers could be pardoned because they belong to the Crown as opposed to the country however the fact they were given pardons caused controversy because in the act of pardoning them it implied they were guilty something campaigners were saying they didn't want, they wanted them exhonerated rather than pardoned. How though did the 'powers' that royalty come to have be given to politicians in a republic?
Click to expand...


It was written into the Constitution I guess founding fathers thought it was a good idea. Now its become a "tradition" when a Governor or the President leaves office usually one of the last things they do is pardon a bunch of people.

One of the worst cases in my opinion of this was the pardoning of Maurice Clemmons by Gov. Huckabee in Arkansas. He went on to kill 4 police officers in Lakewood, Washington State and attempted to Ambush and kill a 5th Seattle officer but he was able to win that fight and killed Clemmons.
 
Tez3 said:
What's the reasoning behind allowing politicians to pardon criminals? I know little about your legal systems so I was wondering where a politician fits in with the justice system.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it's mostly to provide the state with a way out of the letter of the law, and to provide a balance against the judge and jury. It permits a certain human mercy by the system that is not expected to come from the judges. Since the chief executive is as close as we come to a peerage...
 
IMO, if its a case of someone in prison that shouldn't be, ie: wrongfully accused, sure, pardon them. But people that've been locked up for murder, no way. Unless that Gov. has hardcore proof that they're innocent, who the hell wants to let loose a bunch of murderers?
 
In places where there's 'Royal' pardons these are usually reserved for 'political' prisoners and those involved in the things like frauds, unpaid taxes, unpaid fines, those sorts of crimes rather than murder, assault etc.
 
Tez3 said:
In places where there's 'Royal' pardons these are usually reserved for 'political' prisoners and those involved in the things like frauds, unpaid taxes, unpaid fines, those sorts of crimes rather than murder, assault etc.
Click to expand...

IMO, there should still be a good, solid reason for the pardon. Not just for the sake of letting loose criminals, because you're on your way out of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Crime victim still takes it on the chin

Previous Thread

Iran sends rare letter to US over killed scientist

Next Thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top