Former Governor Haley Barbour is catching flak for some of his last acts in office. He issued pardons to selected prisoners and some of them included convicted murderers. When a prisoner receives a pardon he is free to go. This is not parole these prisoners are not supervised they are simply free. This is not a race issue because the men freed were from various ethnic groups. This is an issue of unbridled power, but as I listen to this case I can not help, but think of the Scott Sisters. The Scott sisters had been convicted of robbery. The robbery yielded $14, but the sisters received life sentences for their crime. While in prison one of the sisters experienced kidney failure and the other sister was deemed a match. What is interesting about this case is the Scott Sisters case became a real cause within the black community and it is through the efforts of various groups that this case garnered national attention. The sisters were ultimately freed, but Barbour did not pardon them he indefinately suspended their sentences, and at one point there was talk if the sister did not donate the kidney she might be sent back to prison. So fast forward to now when Barbour left office he decided to simply free the men that worked for him in the governor’s mansion. There are no conditions to their freedom. They served him and his gift to them is a ticket back to society. All I can say is god help society.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/scott-sisters-released-16-years-prison-kidney-deal/story?id=12508754
So exactly what is the point that you’re making? Was there something done by the governor that was out of the ordinary in the way that pardons are typically granted? Pardons are always granted at the full discretion of the chief executive. And there are always cases where citizens feel that some who were pardoned didn’t deserve it and some who deserved it were not pardoned. So how is this noteworthy? Are you sure there is no racism here?
My point is Barbour had to be prodded into releasing the Scott sisters who did not kill anyone, but he arrogantly releases murderers back into the community.
So what? It is a totally discretionary decision. Every pardon granted or pardon request refusal is regarded by someone, as you put, an arrogant decision.
I think it is fair to say that a whole lot of someones are appalled by these pardons. Is it really necessary to point out why so many people are upset by these pardons, which seem not only arrogant but downright arbitrary? A governor may have the power to grant pardons, but the people have every right to expect that power to be exercised with something like rational judgment. Barbour can’t be bothered to pardon two poor women facing outrageously unjust sentences for a petty crime, but it’s okay that he pardons several girl-slaughtering thugs (at least one of whom actually faced the death penalty) because they worked in the governor’s mansion? Seriously?
So what? Are you really unclear about the source of outrage or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Thank you Chip, I am glad to have someone comment who can see that Barbour exercised poor judgment in releasing some of these people back in the community. We know he had the right to pardon but he failed to exercise good judgment and that is the point.
I would dare say that every pardon is a display of poor judgement to those who oppose it. After all, everyone who is pardoned has been convicted.
To Bill:
Everyone convicted is not guilty which the Scott sisters stand on and I thought was the point of this blog. As I live in MS, the former-governor said he made the decision not to grant them pardons because they never admitted guilt and never showed remorse. Therefore, on his interpretation of pardon, I missed this part, could not seek redemption. He said he felt most Mississipians were christians, and he didn’t understand the criticism. Most pardons are made on drug offenses, burglary, and certainly not in such a large number. Most of thes violent crimes were committed against women as well. This hypocritical flawed thinking just kills me. What surprises me is that people are surprised.
State executives have the right to pardon who they seek to pardon. Most use it sparingly. Some–like Romney–never use the power of pardon. Others use it unwisely. Unless a governor abuses his power by freeing Charles Manson, we have to accept that they are within their rights. As far as the Scott sisters are concerned, I don’t care that they only got $14. That was a risk they took when they committed the crime. The important thing is they’re both free unless I’m mistaken. Hopefully they will not re-offend, otherwise they’ll do harder time and not be able to depend on clemency. Best way to not have to suffer the indignities of prison time for stealing $14 is to not do the crime. I know it’s obvious but someone had to say it.
msgirl, I take no exception to anything you’ve stated here though none of them are relevant to my point. So I would simply ask you this question, do you believe that there are any pardons on which everyone agree and think are a display of good judgement on the part of the pardoner?
The vast majority of these people pardoned were convicted of violent crimes. Those who had “served their time” should still have that follow them. Fewer than 20% of those pardoned were women. The crimes committed by some of the pardoned – including those released – were far, far worse than what the Scott sisters did. But Haley Barbour who said that Mississippi is a Christian state and being a Christian means granting forgiveness and giving second chances, said he didn’t think the Scott sisters were sorry enough. I’m pretty sure at this point being sorry has long ago given way to anger. One of them men he let loose stalked his victim for 3 years and shot her through her car window while she waited at a red light. She was pregnant at the time and her children were with her. It’s sexism at its absolute worst.