Revitalizing the clemency process

• Published in: Harvard journal of law and public policy Vol. 39; no. 3; pp. 833 - 873
• Main Author: Larkin, Paul J., Jr
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy, Inc 22-06-2016; Harvard Society for Law and Public Policy
• Subjects: Allegations; Attitudes; Capital punishment; Clemency; Cost control; Court hearings & proceedings; Crime; Criminal justice; Election results; Evidence; Executive power; Federal court decisions; Fingerprinting; Governors; Habeas corpus; Identification; Judges & magistrates; Laws, regulations and rules; Legislatures; Police; Politics; Presidents; Public officials; Racism; Reforms; Trials
• ISSN: 0193-4872; 2374-6572

A trope heard throughout criminal justice circles today is that the system is a dystopia. The only difference is the stage of the criminal justice system being attacked. The allegations ordinarily go as follows: Legislatures and regulatory agencies have adopted too many criminal laws, so many that the average person cannot know what is and is not a crime. The police are motivated by racist attitudes and act like Rambo wannabes decked out in full military gear. Traditional forms of proof, such as eyewitness identification, fingerprints, and confessions, which the public assumes are foolproof are, in fact, anything but -- to say nothing about the more exotic forms of proof such as bite-mark or blood-spatter analysis. The picture would be slightly less ugly if there were an effective post-conviction filter to ensure that any innocent parties not exonerated by the jury or trial judge are freed at a later stage of the case.