NCJ Number
43600
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Dated: (MARCH 1977) Pages: 83-121
Date Published
1977
Length
39 pages
Annotation
CLEMENCY PRACTICES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ARE EXAMINED IN A DISCUSSION BASED ON A 1970 SURVEY OF 50 COUNTRIES AND ON SUBSEQUENT REVIEWS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WITH REGARD TO PARDONING POWER.
Abstract
THE DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON: THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE INSTITUTION OF CLEMENCY IS A UNIVERSAL FEATURE OF CONTEMPORARY LEGAL SYSTEMS; THE BODIES FORMALLY INVESTED WITH AUTHORITY TO GRANT PARDONS; THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THOSE OR OTHER BODIES IN REALITY HOLD PARDONING POWER; AND THE PREDOMINANT TYPES AND FUNCTIONS OF CLEMENCY. A 26-PAGE TABLE SUMMARIZES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR 99 COUNTRIES: LEGAL SOURCE OF PARDONING AUTHORITY; FORMAL DECISIONMAKING BODY; EXISTENCE OF RECOMMENDING, COUNTERSIGNING, OR OTHER ADVISORY BODIES; SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF OFFENSES, OFFENDERS, OR PENALTIES; TYPES OF PARDONS; AND COMMENTS. DESPITE REASONS FOR ABOLISHING THE PARDONING POWER IN THE MODERN WORLD, THE INSTITUTION OF CLEMENCY REMAINS AN INTEGRAL PART OF MOST CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEMES. MOST OFTEN THE DECISIONMAKING POWER TO GRANT PARDONS LIES WITH THE HEAD OF STATE OR CHIEF EXECUTIVE. IN SOME COMMUNIST COUNTRIES, THE PARDONING POWER BELONGS TO AN EXECUTIVE OR PRESIDENTIAL BODY. IN SOME INSTANCES, PENAL REFORM HAS INCLUDED THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADVISORY PARDON BOARDS. COMMON LAW SYSTEMS TEND TO USE THE PARDON FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES, WHEREAS CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS HAVE DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF HANDING SUCH SITUATIONS AS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. HOWEVER, COMMON LAW SYSTEMS ARE MOVING TOWARD SPECIALIZATION OF FUNCTION. DRAFTERS OF CONSTITUTIONS FREQUENTLY CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR CAPITAL CASES AND POLITICAL OFFENSES. THE NEED FOR DETAILED STUDIES OF THE DYNAMICS OF PARDONING MECHANISMS IN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES IS NOTED.