A different viewpoint on death row inmates' clemency in Ill.

[daveleau]

http://www.thesouthern.com/rednews/2...op/TOP002.html

An interesting look from the eyes of a death row warden.

Dave

Governor Ryan did what was provided under the law. It's irrelevant to speak of the prisoners guilt or lack thereof.

Severs seems to be peeved that the freed prisoners made it to Oprah Show but not him.

Point is if you don't want convicted murderers to be pardoned, change the law.

[Epidemic]

solve the whole problem.

Definite guilty bring to parking lot after trial and shoot em.

Give life to the ones where the proof is not absolute. No parole then shoot their lawyers if they used technicality to confuse the issue

I second that.

Or change the law and abolish the death penalty.

But them in solitary confinement for 77 years.

That'll get 'em.

[Theophylact]

From a piece on the web site of the US Embassy in the Dominican Republic, designed to answer questions about Bill Clinton's use of the executive power to pardon:

In debating the pardon clause at the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, the framers considered three questions: 1) Should the power to pardon be formally established?, 2) Where should the power reside?, and 3) What, if any, checks should be included?

Arguing the merits of executive control, Alexander Hamilton, one of the Constitution framers who later became America's first secretary of the treasury, wrote in the Federalist Papers, "It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjectures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever."

Hamilton added, "In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the Commonwealth."

Once vested as a presidential power, the pardon became exclusive to the executive branch, with no requirement for consent from any other branch of government. There have been a series of cases brought to the U.S. Supreme Court over the years questioning the constitutional boundaries within which the power to pardon can be used, but in each one the high court has determined that the president may issue full or conditional pardons before, during or after conviction, and that the power is virtually absolute. ...

(The Washington File is a product of the Office of International
Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:
http://usinfo.state.gov)

Some consider the power of pardon the single most important barrier to the imposition of unjust punishment by the judiciary and legislature.