Last week’s Boston Globe featured a good op-ed by Leon Neyfakh about the philosophy behind presidential pardons and a history of their use. The article was prompted by the White House’s recent announcement that President Obama had issued pardons to 17 ex-offenders. This brings the total number of pardons Obama has granted to 39. Neyfakh, like many in academic and legal circles, feels this number is far too low. He says:  “At a moment when the incarceration rate in the United States is near an all-time high, and the experience of living and working with a felony conviction is growing ever more difficult, it’s worth asking whether the president ought to see the pardon power not just as an option but as a duty.”

Some historical pardons Neyfakh points out are:

· 1800: Thomas Jefferson pardoned individuals convicted under the Alien and Sedition Act, which he considered unconstitutional

· 1919: Woodrow Wilson pardoned 500 people convicted under liquor laws, to signal his opposition to Prohibition

· 1960s: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson reduced the sentences of more than 200 drug offenders convicted under mandatory minimum sentences in the 1956 Narcotics and Control Act

In each of these cases, the president used his pardon power to send a clear policy message that a law was unjust. Each of the laws above was later repealed. Neyfakh comments that in his second term “President Obama could use [pardons] in a similarly principled way, highlighting whole categories of individuals whose lives have been ruined by policies he sees as unjust or unduly harsh—injecting urgency into, say, the national debate over mass incarceration or the disproportionate impact of drug laws on minorities.”

On the state level, we here in Illinois saw the pardon used in such a way not too long ago. In 2003, Governor George Ryan commuted the death sentences of everyone on or waiting to be sent to death row in Illinois. The blanket act affected 167 individuals, who were issued life sentences instead. Ryan saw it important to act to avoid any possibility for a mistaken execution. (13 wrongly convicted death row inmates had recently been exonerated.)  Obama was an Illinois State Senator during this time and is no doubt familiar with these pardons. Only time will tell if Obama chooses to use his pardon power in a similar way before he leaves office.

The White House announced Friday that President Obama has granted pardons to 17 individuals convicted of non-violent federal crimes.  As the Washington Post reports, the successful petitioners “were sentenced years if not decades ago for such minor federal offenses as falsely altering a U.S. money order, possessing an unregistered firearm, embezzling bank funds and acquiring food stamps without authorization.”

Pardons on a federal level do not expunge a crime; the crime remains on the individual’s record. However, the pardon is an act of forgiveness from the President. Receiving a presidential pardon can remove barriers to certain career, financial, and other opportunities. Presidents can issue pardons for incarcerated individuals that include a commutation of sentence, but historically the vast majority of pardons issued have been for individuals who have already served their sentences.

Much like how Governor Quinn receives recommendations from the Illinois Prisoner Review Board that aid in making his state-level pardon decisions, President Obama has the federal Office of the Pardon Attorney that reviews applications. However, in the end it is entirely up to the chief executive whether to approve or deny any given petition. The “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses” is an authority of the President specifically stated in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

These are the first pardon decisions Obama has issued in his second term as President. Previously, he granted nine in December 2010, eight in May 2011 and five in November 2011. Although this total of 39 is much lower than his predecessors—George W. Bush granted 189 pardons in his presidency, while Bill Clinton granted 396—it doesn’t necessarily indicate that acts of clemency will remain rare in his second term. It’s true that presidential pardons can be tricky political territory. Ford’s notorious pardon of Nixon was a public-relations disaster from which he never recovered, and Clinton’s pardon of financier/fugitive/Clinton-campaign-donor Marc Rich was heavily criticized. But so far all of Obama’s decisions have been non-controversial and have received very little media attention. Without a looming re-election battle, perhaps Obama will work his way through more pardon applications in the next few years. It’s a good sign that this first batch comes less than two months into his second term.

The quarterly clemency hearings are currently taking place in downtown Chicago. These hearings are an optional part of a petition for executive clemency/pardon, in which a pardon candidate, his attorney, and possibly also character witnesses, appear before the Illinois Prisoner Review Board and explain the story of the candidate’s case and rehabilitation. The hearings occur four times a year, in January, April, July and October, and the location alternates between Chicago and Springfield.

Most of the petitioners for pardons already served their sentences and have spent years out of prison, contributing to society and getting their lives back on track. These individuals are seeking pardons so that their name will be cleared, and certain opportunities and rights will be restored.

However, some of the petitioners for clemency are still in prison, and are petitioning the governor to commute their sentence to time served. In these cases, the petitioner’s attorney sometimes argues that the sentence his client received was unjust and did not fit the crime. The Tribune yesterday highlighted one such case, of a woman who has served 26 years in state prison for helping to kill her abusive husband in 1986. The woman and her brother were convicted to life in prison for the crime.

In a video posted to the Tribune’s website, the woman’s attorney and sister both provide testimony to the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.  For pardon candidates who will be appearing at a future clemency hearing, this video is a helpful example of what to expect in the testimony portion of the hearing. This video is edited and does not include any objection from the state’s attorney, or questions from the Prisoner Review Board to the petitioner and attorney.

The current clemency hearings wrap up this week in Chicago. The next round of hearings will be at the state capitol in Springfield in January.

Saturday’s State Journal-Register had a good article giving an overview of the state of executive clemency petitions before Governor Pat Quinn right now.  The article points out how former Governor Blagojevich did very little in the way of petitions for executive clemency.  Because Blagojevich refused to address the petitions before him, a backlog continued to build up.  When Governor Quinn took office, that backlog had grown to about 2,500 petitions.

Governor Quinn has done a good job chipping away at the backlog of clemency petitions, while also addressing the newer ones that he receives.  Since taking office in 2009, Governor Quinn has acted on roughly 1,900 petitions.  These petitions have come in the form of pardons and commutations of sentence.

The article also highlights the role of the Prisoner Review Board, which serve as a team of advisors for the Governor.  All petitions for pardons and commutations are initially reviewed by the Prisoner Review Board.  The board will also conduct hearings for those petitioners who request it.  After their review, the Prisoner Review Board sends off the petition to Governor Quinn along with a recommendation.  Governor Quinn usually follows this recommendation, though he can, and does occasionally, overrule them.  If the Governor grants the clemency petition, the petitioner will be eligible to expunge the conviction from her criminal record.