Grant Pardons Research Articles

Remission of Punishment on Ground of Delay

A mercy petition is a formal request for clemency typically submitted to the President of India, who has the constitutional authority to grant pardons or commute sentences. The power of remission of sentences has been give under Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution and sections 432, 433 and 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Penerapan Pemberian Grasi Terhadap Terpidana Korupsi Oleh Presiden

Clemency is a pardon in the form of a change in commutation, reduction or elimination of a criminal offense for a convicted person given by the president based on the consideration of the Supreme Court. The granting of clemency by the president is a form of humanity and justice towards the citizens of the country. And every prisoner has the same right to apply for clemency to the president. Granting this clemency is a fulfillment of human rights and is the president's prerogative in granting forgiveness. However, there needs to be a classification of the crime to provide an opportunity to apply for clemency. Such as the crime of corruption which is an extraordinary crime. The criminal act of corruption is a crime that not only harms one person, but also harms the State and people of Indonesia. Of course, the aim of this research is to find out certain conditions for granting clemency to corruption convicts by the president. This research method uses normative juridical research methods. By referring to the law on clemency and criminal acts of corruption as well as the presidential decision to grant pardon to corruptors. The findings of this research are that it provides special considerations in submitting requests for clemency and evaluation so that the president and the Supreme Court can logically consider their decisions in looking at the convict's case.

PROMOTING ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE FOR PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

The President’s power to grant pardons, remit fines, penalties or forfeitures and the nature of the accountability for the exercise of such power remains unclear. The question of accountability relates to whether the President has a constitutional obligation to disclose the reasons for his decision. The nature of the power is broadly formulated and should undergo reform to enhance the attendant accountability. Over the years, there were debates on whether the granting of pardons constitutes administrative action in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). Because it is a power that potentially has an adverse effect on rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it is submitted that it should be construed in terms of PAJA. Similarly, the role of Parliament in exercising oversight over the process is unclear and inadequate. The article submits that the President should exercise the power together with the relevant Cabinet Minister, and subject to legislative endorsement.

Analysis of Legality Principle in the President's Authority to Suspend the Execution of Death Penalty Convict Mary Jane Veloso

Clemency is very important for the government of a country because it can reduce the risks arising from a judge's decision, especially for maximum punishment such as death penalty, which allows the execution of innocent people. Problems arise when a death row convict asks for clemency and the President rejects it. However, when the executions were to be carried out, the President issued an order to postpone the executions, causing legal uncertainty regarding the denial of clemency. As a result, law enforcement on narcotics crimes becomes ineffective. This happened when the execution of Mary Jane Veloso was postponed. In this study, delaying the implementation of decisions that have permanent legal force through clemency is not a legal remedy, but it is the right of the Head of State to grant pardons to citizens who have been sentenced by a court. Apart from that, there is a legality principle in the presidential policy in delaying the execution of convict Mary Jane Veloso which has been regulated in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and Law Number 1 of 2006 concerning Mutual Assistance. In Criminal Matters and Law Number 15 of 2008 concerning Ratification of the Treaty On Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters). Setting the provisions of the law is an effort to realize the principle of checks and balances, so that the use of this authority has been limited, that is, before the President decides to grant a postponement of the execution of the death penalty, the President must first obtain consideration from the Supreme Court.

A Comprehensive Study of Presidential Power to Grant Pardon in Pakistan

A Comprehensive Study of Presidential Power to Grant Pardon in Pakistan

Article II and the Pardon Power

In light of the unprecedented pardoning practices of President Trump, we should consider curbing some of the most questionable instances of presidential pardoning by amending Article II of the Constitution to provide that the president may grant pardons only “after conviction,” as a majority of state constitutions already provide.

The Miracle of Mercy.

Many states governed by the rule of law provide for mercy powers, most prominently the power to grant pardons. This raises a potential conflict: the rule of law requires that like cases be treated alike. Mercy, on the other hand, is usually understood as being unfettered by legal principles, including the principle of treating like cases alike. Focusing on state officials’ pardon powers as an example of mercy, this article argues that we should conceive of pardons as miracles. Like miracles which suspend individual laws of nature, pardons suspend legal rules on an individual and discretionary basis. Once suspended, the legal rules no longer apply to the given case, and consequently there is no conflict between pardons and the rule of law. As I will show, this discretionary suspension of legal rules is a prerequisite for pardons to fulfil their function as a corrective to undesirable legal results.

The Municipal Pardon Power

At the state and federal levels, the pardon power can be used to restore the dignity and legal rights lost by a criminal conviction. Unfortunately, those facing similar consequences from municipal convictions may not have access to a pardon. Although clemency is exceedingly rare at any level of government, municipal defendants face a unique structural problem that deprives them of the possibility of a pardon. Specifically, many cities have simply failed to create a local clemency power. This Note argues that the authority to grant pardons for municipal offenses is part of the toolbox of powers provided to cities through the doctrine of home rule. Accordingly, cities do not have to wait for the permission of their parent states to create a local clemency power. By failing to advocate for a local interpretation of clemency, cities are missing a valuable opportunity to help municipal defendants overcome the stigma and collateral consequences that accompany municipal convictions. While existing scholarship largely ignores the application of clemency to municipal law, this Note offers a legal framework for reimagining the next frontier of clemency.

“Pardon Those Who Have Wronged You for the First Time”: Ambrose’s Conception of venia and Its Use in His Letters to Theodosius I (Ep. 61–62)

ABSTRACTThis article deals with two specific letters written by Ambrose after the civil war between the usurper Eugenius and the emperor Theodosius I in 394. In both letters, which are directed to Theodosius I to urge him to grant pardon to the defeated party of Eugenius, we read Ambrose praising venia (mercy) as a virtue that needs to be practised in imitation of the Christian God. When taken at face value, the letters and the bishop appear to have played a major role in influencing Theodosius I’s decision of pardon which followed shortly after the battle. When the history of granting pardon is examined, however, it becomes apparent that Ambrose’s venia is in fact not very different from the mercy which had been practised by the Roman emperors, Theodosius I included, towards their enemies since the days of Julius Caesar. With the assertion of this practice, the self-declared intercessor Ambrose’s letters, which were written in the vein of other letters of antiquity that almost always pursued the goal of showing off one’s literary skills and therefore should be read with caution, should be considered no more than two letters gilded with Christian rhetoric to convey the bishop’s version of events to posterity.

The Abuse of Presidential Power of Pardon and the Need for Restraints

This paper examined the nature and application of presidential power of pardon in Nigeria, the United States of America, India and South Africa, amongst others. The power of pardon is an important component of executive powers, which allows the President to intervene and grant pardon, as a way of “dispensing the mercy of government” in exceptional cases where the legal system fails to deliver a morally or politically acceptable result. It exists to protect citizens against possible miscarriage of justice, occasioned by wrongful conviction or excessive punishment. Nevertheless, in recent times, this power has, in practice, become a personal prerogative of the President, a remnant of tribal kingship generally reserved for the well-heeled or well connected. The power of pardon is virtually unfettered and unchecked by formal constraints in most jurisdictions, thereby rendering it susceptible to abuse. However, in some jurisdiction there are conventionally specified criteria which guide the grant of pardon. The paper also examined some of the incidents of abuse of presidential power of pardon in Nigeria and other jurisdictions and proffered suggestions aimed at ensuring a more purposeful and beneficial exercise of the pardon power, particularly in Nigeria.

The President of India - Power & Position

Parliamentary form of Government is established under Indian constitution. Where the head of the state is the constitutional head and the real executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. Though the executive power is vested in the President but he exercises this power with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The members of the Council of Ministers are elected by the people and members of the legislature. “There shall be a President of India” ... Article 52, Chapter 1 of Part V of the constitution of India starts with this proviso. He is the head of the state. The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President to be exercised either directly or through the subordinate officers. The phrase subordinate officers include a minister also. The supreme command of the defence service of the Union shall also be vested in the president. Generally, the executive power means and extends to the matters in respect to which the Parliament has the power to make laws. It is to be noted that such executive power must be exercised in accordance with the constitution particularly of article 14. Generally executive power is the residue of functions of Government, which are not legislative or judicial. The power as conferred on the President under Article 72 of the constitution is that of to grant pardons, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.

FEDERALNE PRAWO ŁASKI W STANACH ZJEDNOCZONYCH AMERYKI

United States Federal Executive ClemencySummaryThe article relates to the core principles underlying federal executiveclemency as an act that mitigates the punitive consequences resultingfrom a criminal conviction. Presidential clemency is also the least appreciated and most misunderstood of presidential powers – the Constitutionplaces no limits on the way the President exercises his power to pardon,except in cases of impeachment.The article gives a historical overview of the power of clemency in theU.S. Constitution. It also examines the evolution of the Supreme Court’sviews on clemency over the years, both substantively and procedurally,and how the Court has interpreted the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, as well as amnesties, commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, and respites. It discusses the procedurefor clemency, including the role of the Pardon Attorney, and concludeswith a proposal of certain reforms to reinvigorate the federal pardonprocess and restore its moral force.

Executive Clemency in United States and India

The power of pardon exists to prevent injustice whether from harsh or unjust laws or from judgments which results in injustices; hence the necessity of vesting that power in an authority other than the judiciary has always been recognized. At common law, a pardon was an absolute and unfettered act of mercy whereby the King could forgive any crime, offense or punishment. From this source, it came to find a place in the United States Constitution and the Constitutions of India. Article II Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that the President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment. Similarly, Article 72 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment, or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense. However, there is a great difference in the application of this power in the United States and India with reference to their constitutional mandates and judicial scrutiny. In the United States the exercise of pardoning power is to a great extent absolute and unrestricted, in India its application is subject to the guidelines issued by the judicial bodies from time to time.

AMNESTY AND THE OBLIGATIO ERGA OMNES TO REPRESS HUMANITARIAN LAW VIOLATIONS: LESSONS FROM THE SIERRA LEONE CONFLICT

The issue of the criminal liability of individuals in both their personal and official capacities is central to human rights adjudication. But this notion becomes a farce if states grant to individuals certain immunities- such as amnesty, asylum or any other exculpating factors. The fact that amnesty have continued to be issued by various government makes it a compelling task for us to look at or determine its proper limits. Among the questions that may arise is: what is the extent of the powers of the government to grant amnesty, whether on a proper interpretation of state‟s responsibility to grant pardon for crimes committed against it vis-a-vis the duty under international law to punish those who have committed other crimes especially humanitarian law crimes. It is our argument that on a proper interpretation of this responsibility, states do not have an unlimited power to grant amnesty. States owe it as an obligation to its citizens as well as to those within its bodies to bring to book perpetrators of human rights abuse. The combination of the above mentioned factors therefore makes the issuance of amnesty asylum or any other exculpating factor, a total aberration. In this paper a background is given to the historical development of amnesty and the extent of states powers to confer same.

القرآن و تزکیۃ النفس (Qur’an and Purification of the Self)

Man is combination of body and soul. Both are to be kept pollution free. Both are to be kept clean and pure. Man has been sent on the earth meaningfully and fully equipped with all such faculties that are required to discharge his function as a trustee on this earth and as a responsible person. Every responsibility is always with accountability and accountability results in reward or punishment. Of course the Creator who is All Knowing, All Vigilant, All Wise and All Powerful may in His Grace grant pardon to whom He wills. No one has the right to question the Creator of all and all are accountable to Him for their words and conduct. The Creator has inherently made aware to every person as to what is right and what is wrong. His conscience pricks and blames when a person is inclined to obey the evil commanding self and when he restrains himself from doing any wrong, a feeling of satisfaction comes in his inner self. All good deeds purify the soul and all evil deeds pollute it. When a person remembers that he is the creation of the Creator, he also feels that whatever the Creator wills is in his welfare and well being especially when the Creator is independent and not in need of anything from any one at any time at any place in any manner. If a person behaves goodly, he does so in his own welfare and if a person behaves badly, he does so in his own damage, harm and loss. Doing good to others in many cases and dimensions costs nothing while doing harm to others costs much. Ultimately, the pricking of the conscience multiplies the loss. The Holy Qur'an has dealt with the self in many and multiple dimensions and made its psyche very clear. Qur'an has forbidden all sorts of fraud and falsehood. It has enjoined fairness and truthfulness in all behaviour.

Pardoning Power Under Indian Constitution

Indian constitution provides two safety valves in the form of articles 72 and 161. Under article 72 President has the power to grant pardon and under article 161 Governor of a state has the power to grant pardon. Government of India has apparently reserved article 72 for grant of mercy to terrorists and hardened criminals whose cases are pleaded by foreign powers. We can observe by a combination of various Supreme Court judgements and spineless nature of successive incumbents, the President of India has been converted into a perfect rubber stamp.The purpose of articles 72 and 161 is to provide a human touch to the judicial process, which is tied down with technicalities. If this human touch is to be subject to the orders of the prosecutor, the very purpose of mercy provisions is defeated. The paper attempts to deal with these matters and tries to explain the situation of the power of pardon in India, as well as in other countries and had compared them with the Indian perspective with specific focus on Indian Law.

The Economics of Presidential Pardons and Commutations

Abstract This paper develops an economic model of presidential pardons (including commutations and other clemency grants). The model assumes that the number of pardons depends both on the expected benefits and costs of applying for a pardon and the president’s calculation of his net political benefits from granting a pardon. We test the model using data on presidential pardons over the 1900–2005 period. Consistent with the predictions of the model, we find that increases in the likelihood of being pardoned and in the number of federal prisoners (and persons released from prison) have a positive effect on applications and that increases in the number of persons paroled (a substitute for a pardon) and in the time from conviction to pardon (which lowers the benefits of a pardon) reduce the number of applications. We also find that Democratic presidents (who we expect to be less tough on crime) are more likely than Republican presidents to grant pardons, that the crime rate has a negative impact on pardons an...

Capital Punishment and Statutory Frame Work in India

As far as India is concerned, the provisions relating to Capital Punishment are embodied in Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. Indian Penal Code is the substantive law, which suggests the offences, which are punishable with death sentence. Criminal Procedure Code is the procedural law, which explains the procedure to be followed in death penalty cases. The substantive law of India viz., Indian Penal Code was enacted in the year 1860. Though very few Amendments are made here and there, in total it remains unchanged, where as Criminal Procedure Code was amended substantially once in 1955 and reenacted in 1972. Though majority of the provisions remain unchanged Section 235(2) and Section 354(3) underwent a major change. The present chapter mainly deals with the substantive and procedural laws pertaining to Capital Punishment. It is also proposed to discuss the power of the executive to grant pardon and commute death into life imprisonment as provided under the Indian Constitution.

The Economics of Presidential Pardons and Commutations

This paper develops a simple economic model of the demand for and supply of presidential pardons (including commutations and other clemency grants). The model assumes that the number of pardon applications depends on the expected benefits and costs of applying and the number of pardons depends on the president's calculation of his net political benefits from approving an application. This yields an equilibrium number of applications and pardons that can be estimated from time series data over the 1900 to 2005 period. Overall, the regression results support the model. For example, we find that the likelihood of receiving a pardon has a positive effect on applications; and that increases in the number of persons paroled (a substitute for a pardon) and in the time from conviction to pardon (which lowers the benefits of a pardon) reduces the number of applications. We also observe a positive time trend in applications that corresponds to the increase in the number of federal prisoners (and persons released from prison) that make up the pool of potential pardon applicants. With respect to the number of pardons, we find that democratic presidents (who we expect to be less tough on crime) are more likely to grant pardons; that the crime rate has a negative impact on pardons; and that the number of pardons increased during Prohibition and during wartime and postwar periods.

Presidential Power Unbound: A Comparative Look at Presidential Pardon Power

Though few scholars compare presidencies, a recent collection by John Carey and Matthew Shugart (1998) compares the use of the presidential executive decree power in several countries. In a similar vein, we examine the oft‐neglected power of the presidential pardon in the United States and Russia. The power of presidents to grant pardons is typically unlimited, which fact alone makes it worthwhile to understand. Like Carey and Shugart, we look at the institutional factors involved in the potential and actual use of the pardon power in our attempt to explicate the foundations of and the constraints on presidential pardons, as well as any trends which may be evident in its use. The comparison highlights the difficulties in precisely defining “pardon,” as well as illustrating the fact that this seemingly minor power in a newer democracy can be used as a powerful political tool.