Want to read more? Subscribe Now or Sign In
Hide ( X )
  • THE CRIME REPORT - Your Complete Criminal Justice Resource

  • Investigative News Network
  • Welcome to the Crime Report. Today is


Is the Federal Pardon Process Racially Biased? It’s Time to Get Answers

July 10, 2012 07:28:04 am
Comments (4)

By Julie Stewart

A recent panel discussion at the National Press Club, sponsored by Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM)  discussed  allegations of corruption at the little-known Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Among the panelists was Dafna Linzer, the Pro Publica reporter whose dogged determination resulted in two front-page Washington Post stories on the OPA, including one that concluded that whites are four times as likely as non-whites to receive a presidential pardon, even when the circumstances of their crimes are roughly the same.

Seven months have passed since Ms. Linzer’s first expose was published. Yet neither the OPA nor the DOJ has responded publicly to its serious allegations of racial bias. When asked at FAMM’s briefing if she was surprised by DOJ’s public silence, Ms. Linzer observed that if  the type of racial discrimination produced by the current pardon process were found at the state or local government level, DOJ would probably get involved and initiate an investigation.

“Yet here,” she said, “we have a case of contemporary race disparity happening within the Justice Department itself.”

It’s time to get some answers.

This week, 15 leading constitutional and criminal law professors sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee urging the committee to investigate the OPA.

“While Congress properly plays no role in the actual consideration of clemency petitions,” the group wrote, “there is a duty of oversight relating to the operation of this office.“

The law professors’ letter is the fourth request for a review of OPA. On May 21, FAMM and more than 35 criminal justice reform groups sent a letter asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the office.

A day later, U.S. Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-VA) urged President Barack Obama to review OPA’s conduct with regard to Clarence Aaron, whose petition for commutation was allegedly sabotaged by the current pardon attorney, Ronald Rodgers.

Finally, on June 11, a group of 16 formerly incarcerated people who received sentence commutations from Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama urged the president to initiate an investigation of OPA.

Concerns about OPA’s misconduct are bipartisan and cut across administrations. Former Maryland Gov.  Bob Ehrlich, a Republican, co-authored an op-ed with me that called for a congressional investigation. Conservative columnist Debra Saunders has long championed clemency for Clarence Aaron and expressed outrage and surprise at the intentional torpedoing of his application, the evidence of which was reported by Ms. Linzer. 

And Kenneth Lee, Associate White House Counsel to George W. Bush, told Ms. Linzer that Clarence Aaron’s petition was presented to him “in the least favorable light to the applicant".

The President’s constitutional authority to grant clemency is too important to be left in the hands of people who have their own agenda. 

Commutations can correct the excesses of harsh, mandatory minimum sentences. Pardons ensure that rehabilitated individuals get the clean slate they need to land a job or to get a line of credit to start a new business. More generally, the clemency power recognizes that our justice system is imperfect, and that prosecutors and police sometimes make mistakes.

The clemency power belongs solely to the President of the United States. If Presidents Bush and Obama believed every federal sentence handed down under their watch was the perfect length and that no ex-offender who served his time deserved a second chance, that would be their right. We know from Ms. Linzer’s reporting, however, that President Bush believed otherwise and sought to extend mercy to more offenders.

We also know that he ignored the OPA in a couple of cases and granted clemency when the office hadn’t recommended it. I refuse to believe that President Obama, who criticized mandatory minimum sentences during the 2008 campaign and signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce sentences for crack cocaine offenses, is any less compassionate.

The OPA’s only job is to assist the president by providing him with the unbiased information he needs to fulfill his constitutional clemency power fully and fairly.

It is clear that the OPA is failing miserably. Since the OPA (and DOJ) will not even respond publicly to serious allegations of incompetence and corruption, Congress must investigate.

Julie Stewart is president and founder of FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums). FAMM works for fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. She welcomes comments from readers.  

« Article List

Posted by Carole Alexander
Thursday, July 26, 2012 07:39

Another example of the inefficiency of our government to correct obvious wrongs. I can’t help but wonder what’s taking so long to revamp the OPA and begin to grant clemency/commutations. Yes, the OPA is failing miserably and has become another National disgrace.

Posted by Mrs. Fields
Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:44

Today I was visiting my husband in FCI Oxford, WI and we were discussing writing letters to BOP.Gov. The guards abuse their position so highly. Just like them I am a working mother and deserve respect as I give respect to them. I know there are rules and they must enforce as we follow. But how do we give it if we don’t receive it. I pay my taxes which goes to prison. So I feel I pay my husbands way, he does what he is to do in there to serve his time. He has admitted to his wrong so there is no reason for him to be treat the way he is nor should I be mistreat. How can a family stay together when our kids see this. I hope someone does something about this behavior

Posted by Dymond Williams
Sunday, July 15, 2012 10:13

I have worked in corporate America for over 15 years and what I consistently hear from upper management is, “the numbers don’t lie”. The base facts are there and can’t be disputed. If there is a disparate amount of minorities not receiving pardons, one must assume that something unjust or biased played a factor into the decision making process. Going a step further and actually having people that were pardoned, telling their true stories of how the system is not balanced speaks volumes. When situations like this occur, normally, it’s time to look at who bears the burden of the blame, or to finger point. In reality, one must admit there is a problem and knowing where the root cause of the problem is and attacking that is the only way to correct the situation. One can say it’s just a matter of differing opinion, but the things that are being exposed are so obvious a child could see what is happening. This is something that I have seen for many years and wonder when and who is going to be brave and convicted enough to call the issue to the carpet and do something about it. Just let your imagination run for a bit and think of all the top ranking officials that have recently been convicted of crimes. Need I say more.

Saturday, July 14, 2012 06:51

This needs action right now.

TCR at a Glance

‘You Got It Wrong!’

June 27, 2016

Arson convictions often rely on ‘expert’ forensic evidence. But the evidence can be unreliable.

Trading Weapons for Salamanders

q & a June 20, 2016

A national park ranger uses nature, history and community service to widen the horizons of gang youth and other troubled kids—and p...

Reimagining Prison

June 17, 2016

The Vera Institute launches an ambitious 18-month initiative next week to explore alternatives to mass incarceration.