Here’s Campbell Robertson’s take.
|
||||
|
I am Tom Freeland,
a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office.
I'm on Twitter as NMissC
Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page. Search NMCError: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page. PagesCategoriesBlogRollLaw: NationalMississippi & Local: BlogsMississippi & Local: PressPolitics |
The New York Times on the Pardons argumentFebruary 10, 2012, 11:44 pm | Tags: Gov. Barbour, pardons | Category: Law: National, Mississippi Supreme Court |
37 comments
37 comments to The New York Times on the Pardons argumentLeave a Reply Cancel reply |
Write NMCtips, tirades, or just say hello at nmisscommentor (@) gmail.com
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
|
||
|
Copyright © 2012 T. Freeland - All Rights Reserved
Technorati Profile 56 queries. 0.792 seconds. |
||||
The Gray Lady made a reference to Haley Barbour as “Boss Hogg”. Mission accomplished.
But failed to parody Hood as Conway Twitty…
Exactly…”Sole Democrat” Jim Hood – The People’s Champion. That article is an excellent example of how the MSM operates.
Well, what I read was a quote from the chief justice saying “no grandstanding” followed by a note that Hood, a Democrat, had been calling the former governor “Boss Hogg,” which sounds like grandstanding to me. The passage reflects badly on Hood, on well on him. Read the paragraph again:
>>
The legal fight has been so politically charged that Chief Justice William L. Waller Jr. began the hearing by saying he did not want to hear any grandstanding or “political sound bites.” Jim Hood, the attorney general, is the sole Democrat in statewide office, and in recent weeks has denounced Mr. Barbour over the pardons, at one point comparing him to Boss Hogg from “The Dukes of Hazzard.”
<<
Conceded. I see what you are saying.
Surely I have missed this somewhere but … what purpose are the publications supposed to actually accomplish? With a typical legal publication, the persons summonsed are informed by the publication to take some certain act to protect their rights, such as “appear in Hinds County Chancery Court in Jackson, MS at 9:00 on February 13, 2012″ to contest a petition. Or to send in a notice of objection by X date.
So, with the pardon publishing, is there something that any objecting Mississippi citizen is supposed to do to object to the pardon? Clearly, there is no pardon hearing. Is there a receiver for pardon objections? Can one even formally object?
If there is no way to even formally object, then it seems that the pardon publication requirement serves very little purpose.
I am sure I am missing something important, so feel free to set me straight.
There is no way to formally object to a pardon other than making calls to the parole board or to the governors office or gather a petition as far as I know. All of which don’t mean a thing once the governor has in his mind that he’s gonna pardon you. That surely was the case with David Gatlin (which in reality is what this whole thing is about). But in all fairness to the publication issue. Who really reads the paper anymore?
It is a nod to the victims or the people in general of that community where the crime was committed. For the Governor and the convict it is a hurdle, a constitutional hurdle.
In my opinion the framers of the constitution did not like pardons being granted at the last minute to midnight on the last day of a Governor’s term, hence the requirement for publication. With publication, the Governor at least had to think well I might catch “hell” for this one before he left office.
What is clear to me based upon the history of the constitution, that the limitation was put into the Constitution for specific purpose and regardless of its “merit” (i. e. no one reads the paper) it says what it says and should be enforced.
With publication, the Governor at least had to think well I might catch “hell” for this one before he left office.
But that doesn’t work. Publication by an applicant means nothing as to whether or not the gov will pardon. Doubtless there are scads of publications by people who aren’t granted pardons. All the ad tells you is “oh, so-and-so wants a pardon.”
It would’ve made much more sense to require the Gov to publish, 30 days out, his intent to pardon someone. That would have the effect Tim desires. But that’s not what the constitution says.
As for “should be enforced,” well, I and others have explained the legal obstacles there. The MSSC can get around them if it wants. Being the high court means never having to say you’re mistaken.
Being the high court means never having to say you’re mistaken.
All the more reason the court has to nail this issue with a 9-0 opinion. Justices can file their dissents, but as to the vote … they have to vote 9-0. Up or down … 9-0.
This may have been addressed, but does anyone have inside info or care to venture an educated guess about when they will rule? They took the case on short notice and with lives on hold, it would seem to defeat the purpose not to decide very soon, like this week.
That was my thought too, Floyd.
The case is 2012-IA-00166-SCT, and those obsessing over the matter may check the general docket daily for an order – type “2012″ for case year and “00166″ for case sequence. It updates sometime in the early morning hours.
Only orders are linked, not motions, so I don’t have a copy of whatever this thing is that was filed yesterday:
Motion # 2012 – 362 Petition To Protect The Civil Rights, Of All Former Prisoners, Who Received A Pardon, From Governor Haley Barbour
(It will be a happy day when one can download motions, responses, and even briefs from the docket. Bizarrely, they don’t even link opinions on the docket – you have to work around to the site’s decision page. Lack of funds is perhaps part of the problem.)
… Ben, the only way they vote 9-0 is against the pardons. Randolph’s view of the question was difficult to mistake. I don’t think unanimity is required, tho I would prefer not to see a 5-4 vote on such an important constitutional question.
I agree with Tim on this issue. I would like to add the 30 day notice would give “victims” the chance to relocate if they feel it necessary. It also gives them time to wrap their minds around what is going to happen, what may happen, who to contact if something does happen, etc. You must keep in mind one of these cases involved a minor child.
Questions I would like to see answered are:
*How did Gatlin get to the Governors mansion? Who actually hand picked a murderer? Do they not have guidelines? If not, make it happen.
*What is the purpose of a jury of twelve if one man can “undo”?(Realizing some of these cases didn’t involve a jury) At the end of the day the Governor is just another man. Who is he today?
*Laws are written much like the Bible, the reader can turn and twist them until their agenda is fulfilled. If lawmakers were as smart as they thought they were, any given law would be ironclad. Not throwing stones, you didn’t write them. Just stating there shouldn’t be a grey area. Laws that govern should be black or white. A life sentence should literally mean life.
*Did the “face” of these pardons include each crime of each individual? What makes the pardons face value correct?
*If the trusties didn’t apply for pardons, why did their haphazard publication state they did? Couldn’t one argue this point?
Sorry, I could question all day…
I
I would like to add the 30 day notice would give “victims” the chance to relocate if they feel it necessary.
Again, this makes absolutely no sense: you’re going to “relocate” just because someone APPLIED for a pardon? Really?
These arguments about the purpose of the publication requirement do not fit the actual language of the constitution that the same people are demanding be enforced as written.
What is the purpose of a jury of twelve if one man can “undo”?
Okay, so your problem is with the very existence of the pardon power. Got it.
Good Guy, starting with your next to last question:
The pardons listed the crime on the face of the pardon. That tells one and all what exactly was pardoned. During the argument, btw, Gen. Hood stated that some listed the wrong county.
And about grey areas: Laws are the work of man. No perfection allowed. Even if it was desired and attempted, the effort would fail; what is occurring here is the collision of two legal principles– the constitutional provision, clear to all, and the principle of separation of powers. No amount of writing can prevent that kind of collision of principles from happening regularly.
The question of who selected the trustys is an interesting one, and, given the history of Mississippi politics, always has been. I have no idea whether politics played a role in these but it often has historically. Why would that suddenly change?
Finally, I certainly want to live in a system where 12 jurors dont have the only say. I want to know that there is a judge who can set a verdict aside, if appropriate, and an appeals court who can look over the lower court rulings, plus back stops like innocence projects and even relief for people who may be guilty but did not get treated fairly at trial. The pardon power is just one of a series of very important checks on the system, and not just to correct errors, but serving functions like showing mercy where appropriate, or providing relief where there is evidence of a changed life, to pick to of many possible reasons for relief.
I hope that anger over one particular group of pardons doesn’t produce a lot of people arguing, as you are here, that a very important check on judicial power gets watered down or eliminated.
Floyd (and Anderson) you can directly access the docket in this specific case with this link
How’d you do that, NMC?
… Never mind, I think I figured it out – “Printable Docket”?
The particular case I refer to warrants no mercy. There was no question as to who or how. I agree pardons are an important check within the judicial system yet totally disagree with one man overriding. There should be a body of individuals that actually sit with all parties involved then vote. Do I think any murderer should walk free? Yes some, with restrictions.
I realize each case is unique. No in this case. There was no doubt he was guilty. None. He wasn’t protecting himself nor was it an accident.
I’m magic, Anderson.
Seriously– once you get the docket up, click on one of the tabs other than “Printable Docket”– say “Case Attorneys and Parties.” That will produce a new frame where one of the choices is “Case Docket,” which will put you back on the docket frame. Right click on the “Case Docket” link and you’ve got a pasteable link on the clipboard that goes straight to the docket you’ve got, but not in a frame.
If that’s not clear enough, ask for clarification and I will try. It is much easier to do than the description sounds.
No, a printable docket doesn’t have live links to the orders, but my method does.
Cool stuff. Thanks!
That’s beautiful. Thanks, NMC and Anderson.
I am hearing rumors through the grapevine that the petition filed yesterday may be of entertainment value.
Hope it gets posted – the title sounded a bit “pro se.” Any word who filed it?
It will be posted.
It will be weird.
It was filed by Shawn O’Hara.
That is a fine Wikipedia article.
“Much to the chagrin of Reform Party members, O’Hara returned to their party in 2011.”
… “Chagrin” is an odd word when you think about it. OED says it’s literally “rough skin” in French, of unknown origin. Good name for a blog.
Good guy, what if it is a child who is given life without parole? What if the child had no idea what was happening to him when it was happening? What if his family is indigent? What if he was railroaded and taken advantage of? What if an 8th grade child was interrogated for hours with no parent or lawyer present? What if no lawyer or parent was present for weeks? What about when everything he said was held against him? What if he was traumatized and in shock and all was held against him in a court of law. What if his court appointed attorneys did nothing to defend him? What if the courts don’t care? What if it is all policical? Should this child die in prison? Life should mean life right? What if he was completely taken advantage of in the crimianl justice system? What if his attorneys never defended him? What if prosecutors were corrupt? What if no one cares? What if appeals are ignored? What then?
Pam, please read my 12:03 post…
The particular case I refer to warrants no mercy. There was no question as to who or how. I agree pardons are an important check within the judicial system yet totally disagree with one man overriding. There should be a body of individuals that actually sit with all parties involved then vote. Do I think any murderer should walk free? Yes some, with restrictions.
I realize each case is unique. No in this case. There was no doubt he was guilty. None. He wasn’t protecting himself nor was it an accident.
None of your questions apply to this particular case.
In our system the Executive is viewed as the most dangerous to liberty. The Executive is term limited. In Federalist No. 69 Hamilton notes the Governor of NY cannot pardon for treason and murder. It is the law of the land now that the President (NDAA signed in January) can identify and imprison any citizen he deems is an enemy of the United States. The weakest of the separated powers must check the Executive branch through its judgement. If our administration of justice is unjust, the Legislative branch must correct it and not the Executive’s power of pardon.
Haley is playing cat-and-mouse with CNN:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/15/chasing-haley-barbour-ex-governor-dodges-questions-about-pardons/?hpt=hp_t3
Good Guy, my comment referred to 10:57, not 12:03.
“You must keep in mind one of these cases involved a minor child”
The case I refer to involves a minor child, one who was left vulnerable and unprotected and as much a victim as ANY minor child.
“any given law would be ironclad. Not throwing stones, you didn’t write them. Just stating there shouldn’t be a grey area. Laws that govern should be black or white. A life sentence should literally mean life.”
You contradict yourself. You say life should mean life suggesting the law should be fixed and rigid (ironclad) and written in black and white. But then you suggest my case wouldn’t apply because there should be a case by case review. Isn’t this creating a grey area? Isn’t there a hole in the iron when one life sentence is distinguished from another? What triggers review if written into law, life means life?
“There should be a body of individuals that actually sit with all parties involved then vote”
How is this new “body of individuals” different from the old body of individuals who have already cast their vote -against mercy? Would you add another sheath of iron plate such as “victims”? Not sure who would be new to the body of individuals who have already sat in judgment at every stage including clemency.
P.S. I thought the laws that govern ARE black or white; if you are black you go directly to jail, if you are white you get out of jail free (well, maybe not free)
Here is his confession… He is WHITE.
http://embed.docstoc.com/docs/110685281/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2&utm_content=3
What should happen to him? Was there any question as to his crime?
Here is the Mississippi Department of Corrections handbook pertaining to a Trusty.
http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/Inmate_Handbook/CHAPTER%20III.pdf
It states>
Any inmate who has a life sentence, was convicted of a sex crime, has a mandatory or habitual sentence, was
convicted of possession with the intent to deliver or sell a controlled substance under §41-29-139, or was
convicted of trafficking in controlled substances under §41-29-139 is not eligible for trusty status.
He got life plus 30.
What was he doing at the mansion? How did he become a trusty to begin with?
This is in black and white. Why is he where he is today?
I am NOT so naive to think mistakes don’t happen or justice hasn’t been served but to be conceded enough not to realize that the power of a pardon sitting in one mans hand is just?
http://4wardeveruk.org/2012/02/black-people-get-longer-prison-sentences-us-than-white-people/
Pam, what may I ask is your point? I am a white woman begging the system to keep a white murderer in prison.
I was being facetious on your point that you think the laws that govern should be black or white…nevermind.
Shouldn’t your name be “good gal”?