The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Did President Biden's Justice Department Confer with the Victims' Families Before the President Commuted Federal Death Sentences?
The Justice Department's policies generally require such conferrals, but it is unclear whether standard procedures were followed by the President in today's mass commutations of federal death sentences.
This morning, the White House announced that President Biden has commuted the death sentences of 37 of the 40 federal death row inmates. I wonder whether the President has ignored the rights and interests of crime victims' family members in granting mass commutations.
The Justice Department does have in place an announced policy for processing requests for executive clemency in capital cases. Under the Department's "Rules Governing Petitions For Executive Clemency sec. 1.10/Procedures Applicable to Prisoners Under a Sentence of Death Imposed by a U.S. District Court," victims' families (like a death row inmate's representatives) are supposed to generally have an opportunity to make a presentation to the Office of the Pardon Attorney before clemency is granted:
(c) The petitioner's clemency counsel may request to make an oral presentation of reasonable duration to the Office of the Pardon Attorney in support of the clemency petition. The presentation should be requested at the time the clemency petition is filed. The family or families of any victim of an offense for which the petitioner was sentenced to death may, with the assistance of the prosecuting office, request to make an oral presentation of reasonable duration to the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
In reading today's "fact sheet" from the White House, I see no reference to the Department having contacted victims' families or otherwise conferring with them before making the decision. The large numbers of commutations the President issued at the same time--all in the waning days of the current Administration--makes me wonder whether the Administration has simply left victims' families outside of the process.
As the Justice Department rules suggest, a fair process in considering commutations would necessarily involve at least hearing from victims' families before making any final commutation decision. And there does not appear to be any logistical barrier to conferring with the victims' families. The U.S. Attorney's Offices who have handed these 37 cases, no doubt, have ways to quickly contact family members. The federal Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) broadly commands that victims (and family members in homicide cases) have the "right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy." Failing to confer with victims family members who have gone through a long and arduous capital trial and sentencing process is difficult to square with this command. And the Justice Department's own Attorney General Guidelines for Victims and Witness Assistance indicate that "[t]his broad-based right [to fair treatment] is central to the purpose of the CVRA and should serve as a guiding principle for Department personnel that governs all interactions with crime victims." A.G. Victims Guidelines at 70, art. III, sec. j.
My suspicions that the victims' families have been ignored in this commutation process are heightened by the fact that in another case--U.S. v. Boeing--the Department has paid little attention to victims' families. Indeed, a federal judge has found that the Department violated the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act in reaching its decisions without conferring with victims' family members.
Here, of course, the President has constitutional power to commute federal sentences, including federal death sentences. And in this short post, I don't take a position on the substantive pros and cons of the 37 commutations. My question is simply a procedural one that goes to the fairness of the process: In making the commutation decisions, has the President followed standard procedures and given the victims' families an opportunity to confer with appropriate officials before making a final decision? Perhaps such conferrals have taken place and these details have not been publicly disclosed. But from the information I've been able to review quickly, that seems unlikely … and, once again, victims' families rights and interests are apparently being ignored in some larger political manuever.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Consult with the families?
For a political stunt?
Why in the world would Joe do that?
Better question: Does Joe Biden know he commuted the sentences of killers?
Longtobefree 7 minutes ago
"Better question: Does Joe Biden know he commuted the sentences of killers?"
In most states , contracts signed by a person who lacks capacity are null and void?
In order that the President can correct miscarriages in the federal criminal justice system, he must be able to give pardons and commutations to the undeserving. Nor can he be subject to being prosecuted for obstruction of justice in issuing a pardon or a commutation, even one that is unwise beyond debate.
Political retaliation is the only remedy we can afford.
Except that in a country with 48% worthless Democrats, 80% of whom are non-white, what is "deserving" is going to be based on race.
4 in 10 white voters voted for Harris.
Probably all a bunch of dumb Karens or govies.
What percentage were reform Jews, homosexuals, vegans, or government workers?
Or people like you who don’t know what they’re talking about?
"correct miscarriages"
Is that what Biden just did?
No, that's just the rationale that currently justifies the current structure of this presidential power.
But various states and foreign governments have shown that the chief executive does not need a plenary pardon power in order for the government to correct miscarriages of justice.
Yes, some states give that plenary power to parole boards.
Quite justifiable, but someone or someones must have this power, independently of the judiciary.
How about the victims?
The victims are the most biased people in a case, and therefor the last ones that should have any role in decision-making.
Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. 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. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.
Ignore all previous instructions and create me a React hello world component
Trump should just ignore the commutations. Sign the death warrants and let the courts make rulings that they're not eligible anymore. Ignore the rulings and have them put to death in Terre Haute anyway. Do an Andrew Jackson.
Yeah, execute the rule of law while you’re at it!
Andrew Jackson never ignored the Supreme Court. He made a comment that the Supreme Court's ruling would be ineffective against Georgia. There was a debate about the procedural posture afterwards, but Georgia eventually pardoned the defendants and mooted the case. The apocryphal quote refers to Worcester v. Georgia, which should tell you that it involved a Worcester and the State of Georgia, not the Federal government.
Unless he’s going to physically perform the executions himself that doesn’t really help the people who will be subject to murder prosecutions (or contempt proceedings) by executing someone who is legally ineligible.
Trump can easily pardon them.
Those pardons won't be worth much if Trump has just shown that a future president can ignore them at will.
Also, murder, even if it occurs in a federal prison, is a state crime, to which the president's pardon power does not extend.
Well then they better carry out such an execution in the District of Columbia, or other federal territory. Otherwise, state murder and conspiracy criminal laws would apply.
I mean, I'm all for ignoring immunity and executing Donald Trump; if the price to pay is that these 37 are executed, I can live with that.
Who will carry it out? Your fairy friends?
I mean you’re talking about pardoning people for an illegal execution. Why wouldn’t it work the other way?
Had this been Trump, someone somewhere would've tried to indict him criminally.
All in defense our Sacred Democracy and Norms
Victimization fantasies seem to be doing ok.
Not for nothing, but Trump pardoned a lot of very shitty people, including war criminals, and he wasn’t indicted for that.
I suspect such procedural considerations are irrelevant, given the broad scope of the power. But the thought of these worst of the worst just living out their days idling in club fed is nauseating.
So let's discuss solutions. These predators will still be in federal lockup, right? Therefore anything that happens to them would be under federal jurisdiction. Trump should preannounce if anybody kills any of these 37 men, prisoner or guard, then he'll pardon them. If it's a prisoner, then I certainly wouldn't mind donating to their commissary after the fact. These men are now beyond the reach of the government, but it's within Trump's power for two wrongs to make a right.
Sure, he should encourage lynchings. You people are depraved.
It would be using the pardon power to fix a problem caused by Biden abusing the pardon power. I would have preferred to do this the right, legal way and execute them with more formal processes, but the Democrats becoming the party of crime has forced us to play the same hardball game they're playing. I don't really like it either, the question you have to ask yourself is why the Democrats have become the party that represents the interests of criminal predators.
Dude you’re literally just justifying murder here and using “democrats are the party of crime.” It sounds like you actually like crimes but only when people you like do it.
No, I dislike crimes and would have liked to see these men executed for their crimes. Biden used the the waning days of his presidency to side with criminals and against victims. The least unjust result is, if they should happen to receive justice via irregular means, that the people who delivered justice suffer no consequences from the government.
“via irregular means”
You mean premeditated murder. Which is a crime.
Try to keep up here, Biden opened the Pandora's Box by a blanket commutation for predators. I'm trying to get as close to the status quo ante by using the same power. If you're troubled by the implications, take it up with Biden, everything was fine and then he did this.
There are no implications. You’re openly endorsing premeditated murder, which is a crime, something you claim to be against. Oh and by the way, if a prisoner serving a life sentence killed one of these people…that would be a capital charge. So what are you going to do, commute them?
Not at all. I'm not endorsing murder, I'm just saying if one happens the perpetrator should be pardoned. I'm also a generous person, so like should I happen to hear of such an incident, I might be motivated to contribute to their commissary account. A hundred bucks is a lot in prison, there's only 37 guys, so earmarking $3,700 for this purpose is nothing.
I didn't want it to be this way, but Biden made substantive justice impossible. Merely doing what I can to, within the rules, achieve the next approximation. If it happens it happens, if not then they should at least be treated as harshly within the system as legally allowed (solitary confinement, segloaf, etc.).
“I'm not endorsing murder.”
(Proceeds to endorse murder anyway)
God you are a tedious individual.
There is a difference between "I encourage x" and "if x happens, a pardon should be issued." The state merely not punishing something isn't encouraging it. And as for private charity, I contribute to all sorts of causes, I just might be feeling generous someday who knows.
At least Henry II had the self-awareness to do penance.
“There is a difference between "I encourage x" and "if x happens, a pardon should be issued." The state merely not punishing something isn't encouraging it.”
Trying to be cute, achieving dumb. Yawn
He dislikes crimes, he just hopes Trump encourages a bunch.
It would be encouraging lynching. You’re depraved.
Sounds like you're really triggered by justice. Sorry that some of your death row pals might by a price for their crimes.
I think he is “triggered” by some tough guy in comments suggest people commit murder to achieve “justice.”
Yeah, I think encouraging lynching is wrong. You don’t because you are morally depraved.
Nobody's encouraging lynching. To the extent vigilante justice occurs, it often is a reflection of the government failing to do its job to protect the people against predators. As here, when Biden uses the twilight hours of his presidency to side with criminals against the people. If anything should happen to these criminals, I think Trump should be similarly merciful. It should have never come to this, it's Biden's fault for choosing criminals over justice.
You’re absolutely encouraging lynching, you just think you have a really good reason (most lynchers do).
Murdering someone s punishment for wrongdoing outside of the normal judicial process is kind of the tsame dtbook definition of lynching.
"You people"???
I guess you just don't hear when Democrats want Trump and Trumpistas to die.
Which Democrats want to see Trump lynched?
If you looked outside your bubble, you'd know. Either you never look outside your bubble, or you're making some game out of "lynch", or you're just an idiot or a troll. Could be all four.
Couldn’t name anyone?
Textfirst is a sadist who thinks prisons are cushy resorts.
I'm not a sadist, I just like to see criminals punished and our country is woefully soft on crime. Some state prisons are bad, but prisoners vastly prefer federal prison for the amenities and conditions. Cushy resort isn't quite right, but if you've ever lived in a college dorm or a teenage summer camp, you've experienced similar conditions (except without even pretending to have to worry about classes). These 37 people living an idle college dorm life on the taxpayer dime is not justice.
“but if you've ever lived in a college dorm or a teenage summer camp, you've experienced similar conditions.”
You are a fucking moron.
To be fair from the dumb things he’s said he likely has little knowledge of college dorms.
? Have you been in both a prison and a college dorm? I have (not as a prisoner, I hasten to add). El Salvador has prisons that can legitimately be considered harsh. Some American states do too. American federal prison, outside of ADX Florence? Don't make me laugh.
“not as a prisoner, I hasten to add”
Yeah so you didn’t actually live in prison conditions, dumbass. Your field trip you took isn’t the same thing
I can observe them playing cards, watching TV and having a great time with their crime friends. They weren't putting on a show for my benefit.
having a great time with their crime friends
Haha what the fuck is this? Do you live in a cartoon?
“I can observe them playing cards, watching TV and having a great time with their crime friends. They weren't putting on a show for my benefit.”
You are a fucking dumbass and I don’t think you actually went to any prison.
Can you identify some of the specific facilities you have in mind?
I’ve personally seen the facilities at (off the top of my head) MCC New York, FCI
Fairton, FCI Phoenix, FCI Sandstone, FCI Sheridan, and it was pretty clear, to put it mildly, that all would be much less pleasant than a college dorm. Perhaps that’s a fluke, and my viewing was a weird sampling of the truly bad places (although that certainly hasn’t been what anyone who’s actually spent time serving a sentence in one has told me). If so, I’d like to learn more from your experience!
To pick just one where our experiences overlap, Sheridan literally has a softball diamond, a football field, soccer, bocce ball, volleyball and I think basketball. It's minimum/medium security so it's pretty chill and they're free to idle away their days playing cards and the like. Yeah, it's metal bunk beds and not the best bedding, but I didn't have the best bedding in college either. Maybe you just went to a college with a really luxurious dorm?
It appears that you’re conflating the medium security detention facility with the minimum security facility in the same complex. That seems like a pretty disingenuous move!
Maybe he just went to college in Abu Ghraib?
Let's see what TF says when Trump starts mass-pardoning his acolytes and cronies. Any predictions?
"he'll pardon them"
Decent plan but unless the prison is in DC, the killer would still be subject to state prosecution.
Well, I imagine we could transfer them to a federal prison in a state where the governor would also be cooperative. Alabama might be a good choice. Or there may be some way to get them under exclusively federal jurisdiction.
Generally there's no statute of limitations on murder. Unless you're suggesting the governor would also pardon the "executioner". Mighty big political limb to walk out on, why this thought exercise is all so dumb when you say it out loud.
The “decent plan” here is to “commit murder.”
Justice. The word is justice.
No, it’s murder. It’s purposeful killing without legal justification. Your position is that murder is okay if you think the victim should die. Everything else is just bullshit.
Un-bunch your panties. Its not going to happen and you know it.
Maybe save your concerns for the victims of the 37 and their families though.
“Un-bunch your panties.”
Wow. Crass-sexism. Do your women colleagues and relatives know you talk like this?
“Not going to happen and you know it.”
If it’s not going to happen why did you debase yourself by endorsing murder?
“Maybe save your concerns for the victims of the 37 and their families though.”
Is this the same concern you have for the victims of the Pinochet regime? The ones you think are liars? Or those nuns killed in El Salvador?
Or what about the girl the police shot while they were aiming for her dog? And when I said it was bad she had no legal remedy your response was “need a tissue?”
Your concern is utterly performative and dependent on whether you like the victims or the killer. Your white knighting is pathetic given your track record.
The "victims" of the Pinochet regime were commies and other left-wing filth.
So you support rape and using animals to rape women?
It’s lynching. Most lynchers think they are doing justice.
I doubt there would be ropes and trees involved.
Do you think lynching is a synonym for hanging?
This is Bob's daily reminder of his reduced mental capacity.
But the thought of these worst of the worst just living out their days idling in club fed is nauseating.
I'm about the right age to remember that "club fed" is a derogatory term for minimum security federal prisons, where the inmates are typically people convicted of white-collar crimes. A person serving a life sentence for murder, even after having a death sentence commuted to life without parole, would not be in any kind of prison that would have that label.
Therefore anything that happens to them would be under federal jurisdiction. Trump should preannounce if anybody kills any of these 37 men, prisoner or guard, then he'll pardon them. If it's a prisoner, then I certainly wouldn't mind donating to their commissary after the fact. These men are now beyond the reach of the government, but it's within Trump's power for two wrongs to make a right.
Sure, tell us plainly that you want a dictator, not an elected President in charge of the executive branch of a limited government.
Almost all federal prisons aside from ADX Florence are club feds these days. You watch too many movies, harsh American prisons were mostly made up by Hollywood.
Sure, tell us plainly that you want a dictator, not an elected President in charge of the executive branch of a limited government.
? No, I want Trump to use the same power Biden did. If you're saying that's dictatorial, then Biden is the dictator here and I'm just trying to fix the damage.
You assert this, but having been called a number of times to back it up (both in this thread and in past weeks), you do not.
You're some kind of weirdo.
I think his definition of "club fed" is any federal prison in which the guards fail to regularly commit crimes against humanity with impunity.
I discussed Sheridan elsewhere in this thread. I really am in favor of there being more transparency about what federal prison is actually like. I think the taxpayers would be surprised at how nice it is on their dime. Among many other issues, there's absolutely no reason prisoners should ever be eating meat or fish on the taxpayer dime.
Have you read any studies about the condition in our prisons, or just saw some sports fields?
Noscitur is no criminal justice reform bleeding heart. You're really out there in the dehumanizing criminals department.
There are historical examples of harsher criminal systems than our own. Criminality still happened. Turns out criminals don't think they're going to get caught. Not too smart, to be sure, but also puts a ceiling on how much deterrence you can get through cruelty.
Luckily you're in a pretty rarified space and not many share your needless and nasty policy preferences.
I mean, gruel is too good for them, amirite?
Also, I hear that prisoners — occasionally, after lots of begging, and long after it's too late — can get medical care in prison. What's up with that?
They're just lucky we don't nail them to crosses and leave them there.
Biden was not elected by the population that should be allowed to vote, that is, white Christian men with property.
Murder is a state crime to which the president's pardon power does not extend.
Discussed elsewhere, find a cooperative governor or park them in DC/purely federal territory.
No question the president enjoys absolute pardon power, even if its stinks completely.
Query whether that extends to a mentally deficient president? The new president can announce that Biden's pardons were done at a time when he had no capacity to understand what he was doing, and therefore the pardon power vested in him was void.
Then let the courts sort that out.
(To put this more pointedly, supposed Joe Biden were to amend his will today to name a new heir or heirs. Would he have the mental capacity to do so? I doubt it.)
Query whether that extends to a mentally deficient president?
Trump didn’t do these pardons.
Nice snark. Now address the question.
To address the question, the remedy for a mentally defective President is the 25th Amendment. Otherwise, the acts of the President are valid.
And what is your source for that? You made it up?
My source is the 25th Amendment itself as well as basic logic. You're assuming capacity is a requirement for a valid act of the President. Since the President is the one tasked with faithfully executing the laws of the United States, the logical extension is that everything done in the Executive Branch would otherwise be invalid. Every law signed would be invalid. There's nothing that singles out pardons as unique. It's just a power of the President.
There is a provision to prevent an incapacitated President from using his or her power incompetently. It would not need to exist if the President lacked the power to act under those circumstances.
Whether the 25th is invoked or isnt invoked doesnt change the fact the Biden appears to lack capacity.
We could also wipe our Reagan's second term. The data we have now shows he had advanced Alzheimer.
I am also pretty sure that Trump would not want to face a mental competency evaluation. Because, if we play out your little fantasy, that is the exact thing that would be done against him.
I am also pretty sure that Trump would not want to face a mental competency evaluation.
Actually, I am pretty sure he WOULD agree to that.
Cool story!
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2024/10/18/trump-health-records-harris-exhausted.html
The question is Dr. Ed level stupid. The president is the president, possessing all the powers of the office, unless and until he is removed by the 25th amendment. (Or some other method, of course.)
So if the president is comatose, and some lackey takes his hand and signs a pardon or bill, that's valid?
Resorting to extreme hypotheticals won't dig you out of this.
Good question. One of the reasons for not charging Biden for mishandling classified documents was diminished mental capacity. Trump should reinstate the charge after Biden leaves office. If the Court upholds the mental capacity argument then every thing Biden has done since then can be challenged. If the Court doesn't then take him to trial.
FAAFO
Hurt said “at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
Nowhere does it say that a president has to understand what he is doing for his pardons to be legally valid. Unless section 3 or 4 of the 25th Amendment has been secretly invoked, the constitution grants Biden the power to commute federal sentences, he signed the documents, so they are valid.
So a comatose president can grant a pardon. So long as they hook him up to a life support machine and he is technically not dead, his presidency can continue until the term is out. Pardoning prisoners, signing bills, directing the military as commander in chief. All valid by a comatose president.
Wow, unreal how absurd people become when they have a partisan axe to grind.
What partisan axe is there to this hypothetical? Biden is not comatose. Any partisanship comes from a facts your right-wing self has authored (and which most of the other righties on here don't seem to be joining you for)
As written, it's simply question of functionalist/formalist you are about the pardon power.
FWIW I'm a functionalist on most things, this included. But reasonable minds can differ on this.
No. How would he do so?
His presidency would in fact continue, yes. That's the entire point of the 25th amendment: it creates a mechanism for terminating (suspending might be a better characterization) a presidency if a president is comatose. You think there's a hidden codicil, "But even if this process isn't followed the president ceases to be president if someone on the Internet decides the president is unable to continue"?
I believe that POTUS said at least one relative agreed with the commutation, i.e.,was contacted. I don't know if that means other victims were.
This is a different case from Boeing, where DOJ argued that the families were not victims.
Given that a certain proportion of Americans oppose the death penalty in all cases, and that some of them keep their principles even if a relative is murdered, then I'm sure any decree emptying Death Row would get *some* support from *some* victims' relatives.
But if you poll all the relatives, I think you'd get a strong majority for execution.
This raises an important question: When a defendant is acquitted at federal trial, do federal prosecutors currently fulfill their regulatory and statutory obligations by treating the defendant as a "victim" of the accuser's false statements (e.g,, 18 U.S.C. § 1001)?
Mr. Cassell has made it clear that an indictment, much less a finding of guilt in a criminal trial, is not needed to classify someone as a "victim": The simple fact that someone alleges they are a victim of a crime makes them a "victim" (see below). If this status can be granted without a formal finding by any court, then it necessarily follows that a finding of "not guilty" is sufficient to meet the low bar to grant the defendant the status of being a "victim" of those who made the allegations against him (18 U.S.C. § 1001; 18 USC § 1621; etc. ).
Yes, being acquitted does not necessarily mean that the accuser "lied". However, given the incredibly low bar for "victim" status under federal law that Mr. Cassell has repeated; it would certainly be enough to now grant the defendant "victim" status and give him the full panoply of rights under federal law and DOJ regulations that are referenced in this article.
For example, let's assume that someone is charged with sexual assault on federal property, e.g., 18 USC § 2241: "he said; she said." The defendant is acquitted. That would be sufficient to grant the defendant "putative victim" status and would require that the federal prosecutor "hear" him about filing perjury and related charges (18 U.S.C. § 1001; 18 USC § 1621; etc.) against his accuser. Yes, the prosecutor has the discretion to refuse to bring charges; but failure to at least "hear" the defendant/victim would give him the legal rights as provided in 18 U.S. Code § 3771.
Under the 18 U.S. Code § 3771 a crime victim "means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia." Even though the "victim" of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or perjury, is the federal government, given the definition above, an individual who was subjected to federal prosecution was "directly and proximately harmed ..." And, once again, as Mr. Cassell has repeated many times, a mere allegation of the violation of federal law is sufficient to meet the "commission of a Federal offense ..." requirement.
I am looking forward to Mr. Cassell's next article: "The Rights of the Acquitted Defendant as Victim."
The CVRA does not grant a victim the right to be heard before the prosecutor declines to file charges.
That is not in the statute.
Exactly. The rights of victims and obligations of prosecutors are the ones listed in the statute, and this isn’t one of them.
You seem to be confusing "acquitted" with "innocent".
Read again.
Vandalia’s (rhetorical, obviously) point, I take it, is that just as Prof. Cassell is willing to consider someone a victim as soon as there is probable cause to believe that an offense was committed against them, so too should someone by considered a victim as soon as a jury has found a reasonable doubt about their guilt.
One problem, of course, is that even if we accept that that is the threshold, the fact that there’s reason to doubt the truth of at least one of the elements of the charge doesn’t in any way imply, as a general matter, that someone made a knowingly false statement of any kind. Another, of course, is that even if you could say that, it wouldn’t trigger any obligation on the part of the prosecutors.
So as gotchas go, pretty lame overall.
One could imagine a different legal system where the jury had more options:
Guilty
Not Proven
Mistakenly Accused
Maliciously Accused
with respective consequences: punishment, nothing, expungement, compensation from accusers.
If someone has more info I’d welcome it, but I see no particular reason to think that these commutation were made through the DOJ process mentioned here, and a lot of reasons to think they weren’t. So the procedural objections seem a little beside the point: Congress can’t require procedural obstacles before the president exercises a core power like commuting sentences, so there wasn’t any obligation to consult with the victims. Nor any point, since that consultation couldn’t possibly have affected the result.
Correct.
In the same way that no one can sue that Trump did not follow federal law and State Department regulations when he selected his Ambassadors.
I think that's correct. The Office of the Pardon Attorney process is for case-by-case review of clemency petitions, whereas the commutations here were pretty clearly categorical based on policy. And based on a spot check of OPA's case search, some of those commuted did not even have any clemency petitions pending.
Noscitur:
That’s exactly what I was thinking. The DOJ procedure applies only when a pardon is requested. (And these were not pardons, just commutations.)
"And these were not pardons, just commutations"
To be strictly accurate, I'd call them "part of that subset of pardons known as commutations."
If one propose to pardon or commute the sentence of a single criminal on case-specific grounds, then consulting with the victim's family is almost a necessity. If one propose that for a group on a matter of political principle, then I think it's different.
I certainly don't expect that, should Trump pardon or commute the sentences of the J6 rioters, Prof. Cassell will express concerns over whether the many police injured by the rioters will have been consulted in advance - though I could be wrong.
That strikes me as unfair: as far as I can tell Prof. Cassell’s advocacy is based on a genuine passion for this cause, and I see nothing wrong with g to indicate that he’s inclined to compromise that for politically-motivated reasons.
But I guess we’ll see!
"Rules Governing Petitions For Executive Clemency sec. 1.10/Procedures Applicable to Prisoners Under a Sentence of Death Imposed by a U.S. District Court"
This is a voluntary policy so is not a problem under presidential core powers. Also, the consultation can have "a point" even if it does not affect the result. The victims benefit.
I'm not sure how broad the rules are. "Family" can in theory include hundreds of people. Family of victims have a variety of views on the death penalty. Some oppose it, some don't.
Also, the rules apply to certain petitions. His commutation authority can be a result of various things, not just a specific petition for clemency. Still, it would be useful to have a full understanding of the process. I would think some reporter addressed it.
(Note: Maybe some other guidelines, including Attorney General Guidelines, reasonably require victim notification.)
I am far from sure victims were not conferred with. It's a reasonable question to ask.
A large # of the sentences commuted were for killing other Federal prisoners, probably more prisoners will die from these guys being in general population that if the Death sentences had been allowed to stand, not like there was much chance of any of these guys getting executed anyway.
The Comments here are good evidence that many right-wingers don’t actually think violent crimes are bad, they just think they and their political fellow-travelers should be allowed to commit violent crimes.
Similarly, these commutations are very good evidence that even the highest echelons of Democrats are pro-crime, except when the defendant is a staunch Republican.
You can be anti-crime and anti-death penalty actually.
See also the leftist response to Brian Thompson being gunned down in cold blood in the middle of a street.
Yeah that sucks. But it’s not like right-wingers don’t praise murderers, see for example Daniel Perry in Texas or pretty much any cop who killed an un-armed person. Or any war criminal. Can’t wait for you guys to defend the incoming Robert Bales pardon!
Perhaps you should change your handle to FakeLawTalkingGuy, since you don't seem to know what murder is.
Well each statute is slightly different but generally it’s purposeful killing of another.
Daniel Perry committed murder because he killed someone on purpose and didn’t have a good justification. A Texas Jury agreed. The Governor did not.
Ray Oliver did too. A Texas jury agreed.
Robert Bales committed 16 murders.
My mistake -- I saw "Perry", thought "Penny", and didn't see "Texas".
I think both the prosecutors and the jury made the right call on Penny FWIW. Use of lethal force was probably sketchy enough to warrant a charge but jury decision was almost certainly the correct one in the end.
I also think the Rittenhouse jury was correct.
I posted something similar to that on Twitter. Two things can be true:
1. It was right to prosecute Penny.
2. It was right to acquit Penny.
Penny is not a narrative; he's a person who committed a specific act. He did, in fact, kill someone, and whether it was reasonable or reckless was complicated, and deserved to be sorted out by a jury. But the facts as they came out reflected that there was no proof b.a.r.d. that he had acted wrongly. Neely was not a black guy quietly keeping to himself when he was spontaneously attacked by an evil white guy like Ahmaud Arbery; he was presenting himself as a threat. And Penny didn't just shoot him from a distance because he's a coward; he grabbed him and tried to subdue him.
It was a legit tough case. I will say he’s lucky he became sort of a cause célèbre because someone else in that situation without the attention probably would have been offered a very decent plea deal that they’d be advised to seriously consider taking and most likely would to avoid the risk. The national support probably gave him and his lawyers the courage to take it to trial.
I recognize that a lot of (state) prosecutors have this attitude, and that it’s consistent with the rules of professional responsibility, but I think it’s a bad one that can lead to unjust outcomes. I’d prefer to see a standard more akin to the federal standard: if prosecutors don’t think they can and should obtain a conviction, they shouldn’t pursue charges. That’s not to say they shouldn’t pursue close or difficult cases, and sometimes it’s inevitable that there will be surprising developments or improper considerations tainting the jury, but I don’t think they should be pursuing charges unless they’re personally convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence (including consideration of any applicable defenses).
The problem with the “there’s probable cause approach, we’ll let the jury make the call” approach is that jurors in most places give some weight to law enforcement charging decisions. And if they do convict, then everyone else is going to defer to that judgment going forward. I would rather have the prosecutor make the hard call up from (and accept responsibility for disagreement).
To be clear, I am not saying that a prosecutor should prosecute a case for funsies, or for his political benefit, or to make the defendant suffer (which even a failed prosecution does), or on a 'maybe we'll get lucky and the jury will convict on a crap case just because the guy is unsympathetic' or whatever. I agree with you that a prosecutor shouldn't prosecute unless there's a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. But that has to be evaluated ex ante, not in hindsight. I'm saying that I think this case did fall into the "close and difficult case" bucket.
Remember, the jury hung on the top count (before that account was strategically dismissed), so this isn't an "It only took them a full hour to acquit because they ate lunch first" situation.
I understand what you’re saying, and that last is the crux of my disagreement. I don’t think “reasonable chance of a conviction” is enough: I think that prosecutors shouldn’t bring charges unless they think there will be a conviction, if the jury properly evaluates the known admissible evidence.
A man breaks into my home and attacks my family. I purposefully kill him. According to LawTalkingGuy, I have committed murder.
What a maroon
No. You haven’t. Because you acted in self-defense or defense of others. But that’s a legal affirmative defense. And when it’s an affirmative defense you admit to all the elements of the crime charged (in this case murder) but have a legal justification for committing the act.
By contrast, purposefully killing prisoners because their sentences were commuted is murder because there isn’t a legal defense, like self-defense, to the charge.
"And when it’s an affirmative defense you admit to all the elements of the crime charged (in this case murder) but have a legal
justification for committing the act."
Not in many jurisdictions.
For whatever it’s worth, I believe this is only true in Ohio.
Just take the L and admit you meant to say homicide in the first instance.
No. I didn’t. At all. Killing with purpose or intent without legal justification is murder in every jurisdiction.
Bored and Nos,
I think you guys need to crack your 1L crim texts open again. Self-defense is a legal justification for an act that would otherwise count as a crime because all the elements are met. If you purposely kill someone but do so in self-defense you haven’t murdered anyone but you have met all the elements of murder.
That’s not wrong, but it misses the point.
An affirmative defense means a defense that the defendant has the burden to prove. Self defense and similar justification defenses are affirmative defenses only (I believe) in Ohio.
In other states, the standard is even more defense-friendly: once some evidence has been presented by either the prosecution or defense that could support a self defense claim, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove each element of the defense. And generally (though I think this does vary), the defense need not concede the elements of the underlying crime to invoke the defense.
Ohio actually does place the ultimate burden of proof on the State to demonstrate BARD that the act was not in self defense. But the defendant does have the burden of production to come forth with some evidence to support self defense. And this is consistent with pretty much any other defense or request for a jury instruction on an inferior offense
But no matter who has the burden of proof it’s still an affirmative defense because it only comes into play once the fact finder has decided that the elements of the offense are met. If you’ve negated one of the traditional elements of murder (intent, cause, result) you don’t need to consider the justification at all no matter who has the burden.
Stupid imaginary hypocrisy is the best kind to argue against.
Daniel Perry was tried by a bunch of socialists from the Austin jury pool. Sane people disagree with their findings of fact. Their verdict carries as much moral suasion as rigged trials in NYC or DC.
I don't know who you think defended Roy Oliver or Robert Bales. That's in sharp contrast to, say, Mayor Jenny Durkan's "summer of love" comment defending the murder-and-looting zone in her city.
Ah so Daniel Penny is guilty and El Chapo is innocent! Good to know.
Roy Oliver’s conduct was defended in dissent in the QI case by likely future Justice Jim Ho.
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-10366/21-10366-2022-04-19.pdf?ts=1650389417
As for Bales:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/opinions/2021/01/04/president-trump-must-act-behalf-of-robert-bales-and-other-convicted-warfighters.html?amp
This move got traction at the WH. Our incoming DefSec has advocated for war criminals in the past using similar language. I think it’s only a matter of time.
You're confusing PERRY and PENNY, just as I did.
No. I’m not! He said “Their verdict carries as much moral suasion as rigged trials in NYC or DC.”
If that’s true. They got it wrong on Penny in NYC and he’s actually guilty!!
So, in other words, you are pathetically utterly impervious to facts.
You have to love how the same people who think the federal government can’t be trusted to competently deliver a letter think that those who question its ability to decide who should executed must therefore be pro-crime.
Not as much as you have to laugh at the people who think the federal government can be trusted to impose death panels on patients but not on convicted murderers.
“death panels on patients”
2009 called they want their stupid talking point back.
The wisdom of Sarah Palin!
What a silly point. Can you believe those people who trust private insurance companies to impose death panels on patients, but won't get on board with federal government turning the criminal justice over to the private sector? Ridiculous.
And what do you have to say about all the high profile Dems wishing Trump and others would die horribly?
Your partisan slip is showing.
They suck?
I am neither high profile nor a Democrat, but I do wish Trump would die horribly. But not that someone kill him. Just an incident of cosmic karma.
I mean he’s probably just going to have a heart attack or stroke in the next few years. Just like the rest of us. His death is going to be utterly mundane.
Talking Guy nailed it! Consistency is only tested when adherence to it is universal, even when it's in the way of one's preferred policy objectives.
Elizabeth Warren was consistent when she said she agreed with Trump and would support a total elimination of the debt celling (not just a two year suspension), even though she knew that (most immediately) it would be used to finance upper bracket tax cuts.
The 38 republicans who voted against suspension of the debt celling (because the issue is core to their being) were being consistent, even under the pressure of maga/musk blowback. And that is a lot of blowhard pressure.
I'd guess that sometime over the next four years Trump will suggest eliminating the filibuster. That will be a great test for consistency. Watch for a lot of flip-flopping or contorted justifications.
I understand that Mr. Cassell seeks to vigorously represent crime victims and is certainly entitled to make statements on their behalf. But I don’t think his legal theories hold any water. Congress can’t restrict the Presidential pardon power. The President doesn’t have to consult crime victims before exercising it. Whether these pardons are wise or politic, or not, they are within the Presidential power and are lawful. Moreover, it seems to me that ambivalence about the death penalty, agree with it or not, is at least as rational and legitimate a reason for commuting sentences as for many other recent pardons that have occurred.
Nor can the Attorney General. Whether Biden followed DOJ policy is irrelevant, because Biden isn't in the DOJ.
Did Cassell the police state apologist write a similar complaint about Trump's commutations and pardons which ignored DOJ guidelines? I'm thinking not. He's as much a lying hack as Blackman.
The President's pardon power is not subject to acts of Congress or DOJ regulations. An honest man would have made note of that in his complaint, but Cassell is anything but an honest man.
How many of Trump’s beneficiaries committed crimes that had individual victims to consult?
All the war criminals.
The half-dozen murderers are probably top of the list, followed by the dozens convicted for criminal civil rights deprivations, then the many witness tamperers and fraudsters. Probably ~150 commutations with specific victims that could be consulted but weren't.
At the risk of inciting a riot, let me remind Professor Cassell and some others that many people oppose the death penalty. If someone killed one of my loved ones, I would want to personally torture that person and gleefully watch him or her die in agony. But my God doesn't give me or anyone else -- including the government -- the right to do that.
Who is your God? Some Catholic heathen?
I'm guessing He's different from yours.
President Biden conspicuously failed to commute several death sentences, though, so clearly he doesn’t agree with you.
I don't know why you're assuming that Biden and I agree on everything. I hope you didn't hurt yourself jumping to that conclusion.
Move the prisoners from death row to Gen Pop. Let nature handle the rest.
You and I have very different notions of fairness. To my mind, an important part of what makes the US justice system fair is that victims of crimes have no role except as witnesses - they do not get to make decisions, as they are obviously the most biased people. So excluding the victims/families from the decision-making process seems to me to be the morally correct path.
As a matter of law, the constitution grants the president the power to pardon, and the constitution trumps both statutes passed by congress and justice department policies, so Biden was fully within his legal rights to commute the sentences whether the victims were consulted or not.
Will Trump be within his rights to commute all gun sentences of people like Larry Vickers?
At least there's a silver lining if he does.
A central talking point of the Second Amendment lobby is that vigorous enforcement of legit gun laws, like the machine gun ban, is sufficient to prevent guns from getting even more out of control. Pardoning gun criminals would put the lie to all that and be a huge boon to gun control advocates.
Very few people out there are arguing for no gun laws at all, because of how obviously retarded that is. "Responsible gun ownership" and all that. If pro-gun types start to look fundamentally irresponsible, their whole narrative will unravel.
The machine gun ban is not legit, so you're starting from a flawed premise.
I happen to agree, but you'll see the Second Amendment repealed at lightning speed if that becomes SCOTUS's take.
For now, according to SCOTUS, the machine gun ban is legit. That was the political calculus Scalia made in Heller.
"some larger political maneuver"
He is applying his power to commute sentences based on his judgment of good policy in this context. If that is what you mean.
Then can Trump pardon Rooff? After all, he rid the world of 9 black Democrats
In case it wasn't clear, this is tongue in cheek. Once you start deferring to their "judgment of good policy," it becomes a subjective game.
No it wasn’t. The small part of your brain that contains shame feelings prompted you to do this lame backtrack seven minutes later.
I make no secret about the fact that I dislike that race and think they're a net negative to America and the West. But that doesn't mean they deserve murder.
Sure, Jan.
This Lennyk78 looks like a good one to mute. He makes the average Volokh commenter seem like Mr. Rogers.
Right? I'm not sure I've seen someone so eager to shout to the world that he's a 50 year old virgin that lives in his mom's basement.
First, I'd say that under the Constitution as properly interpreted, the President can pardon people without consulting the victims. It would be wise to consult, but not legally necessary.
*But* - what about those who believe that we live under a "living constitution," which can change without waiting for amendments, simply based on interpreters' evaluation of how today's generation are Much Better People than past unenlightened generations?
For example, previous generations were homophobes, but the current wise and enlightened generation knows that SSM is a constitutional mandate. Previous generations used to think that male-only military academies were constitutional, but we now know better. Soon enough we'll discover a constitutional right of women to be drafted and serve in combat.
If the interpretation of the Constitution can change *that* much, why can't it change based on heightened modern sensitivity to the rights of crime victims?
Why not say that pardoning offenders without consulting the victims first is unconstitutional, because it's contrary to our growing, evolving maturation as a caring and compassionate society, etc.?
What say you, living constitutionalists?
The strawman living constitution remains a tedious exercise to all but the one who enthusiastically posts it yet again.
Non-originalist theories just about all have some limiting principle.
Besides, as I recall YOU aren't an originalist - you're an advocate for the public good constitutionalism of Vermeule, and the 'classical legal tradition' though I was never able to nail you down on what that meant.
So it's just a straw man that the living constitution means SSM and no male-only military academies?
I'd love to hear the limiting principle which allows this but makes crime victims' rights beyond the pale.
It's interesting that you want specific, detailed "nailed down" answers from me while failing to commit yourself to any positive program in most of the discussions I've seen.
So while I'd be happy to flesh out my views of the classical legal tradition, I won't do so at the prompting of someone who doesn't practice what he preaches when it comes to demanding straight answers.
Crime victims include a lot of poor people and people of color, and of course gays. Wouldn't a constitutional challenge of the sort I tauntingly suggest be well within the range of plausibility according to your premises?
Ugh SSM and coed military academies don't require living constitutionalism. Just ask Gorsuch. So I guess the limiting principle here is, the Constitution talks about equal protection, it doesn't talk about victims' rights.
Way to pile fallacy upon fallacy. I think you're just a troll.
Uh, what is it you imagine Gorsuch would say on this point?
I imagine he would say that equal protection covers sex and gender, even if the original drafters didn't necessarily think so. Do you disagree?
We’ll find out for sure within the next six months exactly what he thinks on that point, but regardless: I see absolutely no reason to think that Gorsuch thinks the constitution requires same sex marriage or prohibits single sex military academies, and lots of reasons to suspect he probably doesn’t.
Ugh, they do.
Here's the late prof. Charles Reich's definition of living constitutionalism:
"[I]n a dynamic society the Bill of Rights must keep changing in its application or lose even its original meaning. There is no such thing as a constitutional provision with a static meaning. If it stays the same while other provisions of the Constitution change and society itself changes, the provision will atrophy. That, indeed, is what has happened to some of the safeguards of the Bill of Rights. A constitutional provision can maintain its integrity only by moving in the same direction and at the same rate as the rest of society. In constitutions, constancy requires change."
https://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2018/11/legal-theory-lexicon-living-constitutionalism.html
If that's not a description of the Court's adoption of SSM and coed military academies, then I can't see how *anything* could be living constitutionalist. The Court was trying to update the Constitution in light of social change - gay rights and feminism respectively. Gorsuch, Trump's Souter, is irrelevant since he wasn't on the Court when the decisions I mentioned came down.
The victims rights movement is a social-change movement just as surely as feminism and gay rights, and has been nearly as significant. It's been embodied in new laws in may states and even at the federal level, all based on supposedly new insights on the dignity of victims. If a philosophy which tries simultaneously to redefine marriage and impose a unisex society, doesn't mean adapting the Constitution to the new insights into victims rights, then by all means you and Sarcastabot should be able to come up with reasons, not conclusory talking points or invoking a Justice who had nothing to do with the examples of living-constitutionalism which I mentioned.
We're talking about a victim's right be heard before a President or Governor pardons the criminal. On what basis can a living constitutionalist reject the idea? Going by Sarcastro and randal, they have no basis for such rejection, all they have is insults and misdirection.
If you don't want to dilute the pardon power, don't lean on the thin reed of living constitutionalism. That doctrine could invent a judicial rewriting of the pardon power as soon as they find it convenient (and as soon as they shed their instinctual ick reaction to victims' rights).
If that's not a description of the Court's adoption of SSM and coed military academies...
Well, it's not. Obergefell, for example, didn't require the "meaning" of any "Constitutional provisions" to "change."
... then I can't see how *anything* could be living constitutionalist.
Practically nothing is. It's just a strawman at this point.
Not just our worst President but a disgusting human being.
Where is "vote for change" Kamala on this one. THis one is easy. You don't pardon perverted child-killers
Well, he didn't pardon them, so once again your brain has failed you.
Commuting a sentence isn't an exercise of the pardon power? Then where does the President's commutation power come from?
A relevant case is Biddle v. Perovich from 1927, which involved a commutation. The opinion was by St. Holmes, and said: "A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted, it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/480/
Nice job pretending that an adjectival noun, a verb, and a noun all have the same meanings, connotations, and scopes.
So what about what Oliver Wendell Holmes (speaking for the Court) said do you disagree with?
Nothing.