Gov. Haley Barbour: A GOP Boondoggle on Clemency for Murderers
Rawlein G. Soberano, Ph.D.
Republicans these days cannot seem to shoot straight. Mississippi is one of the last remaining states to offer this program of allowing convicted felons to work in the governor’s mansion. It is uniquely southern, partially rooted in the region’s Christian custom of forgiveness, of believing in second chances. South Carolina had a similar program until 2001 when inmates were found to have sex in the governor’s residence. Haley Barbour recently left the governor’s office in MS after serving two terms and is on his way to establish a lasting reign in GOP politics. This is antithetical to everything law-and-order Republicans stand for, more than 200 criminals pardoned, including some violent convicted killers. What was he thinking?
Haley Barbour granted full pardon to about 200 people, including shoplifters, rapists, burglars and embezzlers; it also included 14 murderers. The Governor rationalized his actions, stating that 90% of the people he pardoned were already out of prison, recommended for clemency by the parole board. The pardon was to allow them to find gainful employment or acquire professional licenses. The uproar was about the people still in prison. Of particular concern were four men serving life sentences and worked as “inmate trustees,” a privilege given for good behavior. The Attorney-General complained that the governor failed to give the public 30 days notice before the criminals were pardoned. The state law also requires the governor to notify victims and their families in advance to give them sufficient time to comment.
Newscasters were having a ball at his expense. They were painting a picture of dangerous criminals roaming the street looking new victims, endangering the safety of citizens. This was exacerbated in the beginning by his reluctance to speak to the media on the decision he had made. In due time the list will be made public and questionable inmates will be identified. The pardons restore the civil rights of these criminals and wipe their criminal records clean. If they were paroled, the state would keep tabs on them. Because they were pardoned, the families of the victims face a terrible nightmare, not knowing where these convicts are. If you are a member of the victims’ families, would you be able to sleep well at night, not knowing when or whether these convicts will be back to strike you?
Surely, pardons have a place in our society. Our judicial system is frequently unfair, particularly for minorities, and sentences handed can be capriciously harsh and cruel. There are people in prison who should have been released by now or even earlier, but were kept in for reasons unknown that have nothing to do with rehabilitation. They’re taking valuable cell space while worse offenders were given probation or early release. It provides some explanation of this injustice when one looks at the investors in building these prisons who need to have them filled so that they could garner the benefits of their investment even if this is done unjustly on the back of minorities. Based on the evidence and recommendations from justice officials, if one believes the pardon is justified, why not publicly defend their action and not delay justice?
Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison in minimum custody costs $22,218 a year; medium custody is $28,934; and maximum custody is $32,547. An individual sentenced to 5 years from a $300 theft costs the public more than $100,000. The cost of a life term averaged $1.5 million. States are now spending more money on prisons than on education. Over the course of the last 20 years, the amount of money spent on prisons increased by 570% while that spent for elementary and secondary education increased by only 33%.
Since Governors pardon or commute sentences rather than parole, the whole bureaucratic expense of fielding the board, all its officers could be eliminated. Many members of the board are political hacks with little or no experience in law. They are also about the business of making prison cells available for more people being brought in. They keep psychological evaluations, deportment histories, criminal histories and arrest records and court records. In brief, they are nothing more than paper pushers. The parole, as we know it, is a bad joke on the public, hiding behind a mask of expertise it doesn’t have.
There are two rules to follow regarding a defendant’s release: 1) Never inflict unnecessary pain on a victim (sometimes a lawyer can’t do his constitutionally required job without causing some pain), and 2) Never miss an opportunity to perform an act of courtesy for a victim. Haley Barbour violated both these rules. Consequently everyone loses. The victims are angry and fearful. That anger (along with sloppy implementation) puts the validity of clemency at risk.
Less than a week after the pardons, a judge blocked them, bringing to new heights the dream and uncertainty for the inmates, their families and the families of the victims. The judge ruled that some of the pardons were procedurally flawed because legal notices were not issued 30 days earlier; slamming the governor as either inattentive to the nuances of the law or was outright insensitive to the victims’ families. What happened to the rhetoric that Republicans are tough on crime? The judge adds that the 21 pardoned inmates, who are still in prison, will remain behind bars until their pardon meets the public notification requirement. If he finds that the four murderers who served as “trustees” were improperly released, they might have to come back to serve out their sentences.
Is this abuse of power or what? These GOP governors, e.g. Scott Walker of AZ, Rick Scott of FL, John
Kasich of OH, Mitch Daniels of IN, among others, are governing their states like sanctimonious autocrats. Why not hold Barbour in a house arrest until the four murderers are returned to prison? What happened in MS provides a window of opportunity regarding a governor’s power to grant clemency at his discretion, especially when the state house is in the hands of one party. Isn’t it weird that a governor could grant inmates pardon so that they could “hunt.” His actions regarding pardons make Arnold Schwarzenegger look tame. Do you think he would have granted the pardons if he was going to run for president? He was term-limited out of office. No one wanted him to run for president. Did he release these criminals out of spite?
It behooves to remember that pardons are within the power of the governor. If the people are not happy with this, they need to get involved in the legislative process before another governor does the same thing and cause another embarrassment to the state. Our legislatures and courts serve at our discretion. If we don’t like what they are doing, we have the power to remove them or change the legislation. Otherwise we get what we haven’t asked for.
Haley Barbour is returning to Washington as a mega-lobbyist after dominating Washington’s political life to establish a sweeping statewide supremacy for the GOP, unseen since the days of Reconstruction. Republicans control both houses in the state. His decision annoyed members of his party. The longstanding MS custom of pardoning inmates, also called “trustees,” working at the governor’s mansion (clean, work in the kitchen, wait tables, wash cars; they may not stay the night at the mansion, and will phase out violent offenders to work there) might have breathed its last breath. The new governor (Phil Bryant) will back away from the footsteps of his predecessor. (02 -01-12)
Posted by: |