Thank you for visiting my website. 

 

Jeff & Lisa Perry

Legal yes, but still very wrong


Last week the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the pardons issued by former Governor Haley Barbour during his final days in office.  These “get out of jail free cards” included more than two-hundred in total, comprising four convicted murderers who apparently had worked at the Governor's Mansion.

Viewing this as an attorney, the Mississippi high court was correct with their legal reasoning.  All states, including Massachusetts have a Constitutional grant of power and procedural process in place allowing such pardons.  Many Governors (and Presidents) issue pardons in their final days in office to avoid the usual political fallout from letting convicted criminals free.  This Constitutional power is indeed absolute, but was clearly not intended by our Founding Fathers to be used as Governor Barbour (and others) did. 
Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that, “The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”  To our Founding Fathers, the power to pardon was included in our Constitution as a check and balance against excessive punishment issued by judges.  During the time of the ratification of our Constitution, in England judges often applied a death sentence to even minor crimes.  The framers of our Constitution recognized such gross injustices could occur in our new judicial system.  The ability of a pardon served as yet another check and balance for our new republic.

In the majority 6 to 3 decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court wrote "we are compelled to hold that…in each of the cases before us…it fell to the governor alone to decide whether the Constitution's publication requirement was met."  The Court held that overturning the pardons granted by the Governor would violate the separation of powers of the different branches of government.  The Mississippi Court was 100% legally correct.
While legally permissible, the exploitation of such a power, Governor Barbour is simply wrong.  Such abuse of the trust the people place in the highest elected official of a state not only endangers public safety by putting dangerous criminals back into society, but also, such pardons while the Governor is about to leave office seriously erode the faith people have in their elected official.  Furthermore, it frustrates police and prosecutors and understandably angers the victims of crime.

As a Republican, I previously had a very positive view of Governor Barbour prior to the issuance of the pardons.  Polls showed Barbour enjoyed a high approval rate and his name had been floated as a possible vice-presidential candidate.  When I first heard the media reports of the Governor’s final actions in office, I suspected the media was exaggerating the story for news purposes, but after studying the pardons and reading the court case, all one can be left with is disappointment and the recognition it is time to consider reforming this unchecked power.  Certainly not every Governor abuses this power.  In fact, Governor Romney issued zero pardons as the Governor of Massachusetts. Something needs to be done to prevent future actions similar to Governor Barbour’s.

As the dust settles on this story, legislators from both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle have proposed changing the Constitution or state laws to limit the gubernatorial pardon power.  Of course this would require a constitutional amendment and should not be taken lightly or be based on emotion, but it is clear we need a check and balance on Governors who betray the public’s trust and abuse their power during their final hours in office.