First, as Grits has reported in the past, Grissom noted that "From 2001 to 2009, the board considered more than 2,000 applications. It recommended clemency in more than 530 cases, and Perry granted about 30 percent of them." The Tribune's Matt Stiles created a helpful, searchable database of Perry's Pardons.
P.S. Ruckman who writes the blog Pardon Power got in a good one: "In Texas, the Board of Pardons and Paroles would seem to give the governor a kind of political cover, since he can’t grant a pardon without their recommendation. Ruckman says it’s baffling that Perry so often rejects the suggestions of a board whose members he appoints. This year, the board recommended 41 clemency applications to Perry, but he rejected 80 percent of them. 'You’ve got to wonder, if he appoints them … why he disagrees with them so much,' Ruckman says." Indeed. Grits has noted in the past that "In my own mind, I probably hadn't given the parole board enough credit for how many clemency recommendations they make compared to the meager number Governor Perry ultimately signs off on." Texas would actually have a more robust clemency program if Governor Perry followed his appointees' recommendations.
Grissom compares Perry's record to recent governors: "In his nearly six years as Texas governor, George W. Bush granted only 21 pardons. Compared to Texas governors before them, Ruckman says, Perry and Bush have been particularly parsimonious with their pardons: Republican Gov. Bill Clements issued more than 800 pardons during his eight-year tenure, and Democratic Gov. Mark White issued nearly 500 pardons in four years." Grissom didn't mention how many pardons Ann Richards gave during her single term, but this source says the number was 70.
The article closes with these sentiments from former Clinton pardon attorney Margaret Colgate Love:
Of course, pardons aren’t just for people who want out of prison. Many times those who request pardons have already served their time and paid their fines and are simply fed up with not being able to find jobs, buy guns for hunting or vote because of their criminal records. In Texas, there are some 1,400 legal barriers for convicted felons, says Margaret Love, a clemency attorney and former U.S. pardons attorney during the Clinton administration. A full pardon wipes those away and gives the offenders better access to jobs, homes and a normal life, which also means they will be less likely to get into trouble with the law again. “The function of the pardon is precisely to say, ‘Hey, it’s okay now,’” she says.See related Grits posts:
Love says that if Perry is worried about political fallout, he would do better to rely more on the board’s pardon recommendations instead of picking through them himself. “He would be able to use his power more generously," she says, "and there is certainly a need.”
- Christmastime clemency is a joke, but pardons could be meaningful remedy for 'government overreach'
- How the Grinch stole clemency: Christmastime pardons trivialize process
- Casting light on Texas clemency decisions
- Public tired of Willie Horton? Whither 21st century clemency?
- Perry's Christmastime pardons an odd mix, short list
- Clemency in the Rick Perry era
- "The quality of mercy is not strain'd," particularly when it doesn't have to do any heavy lifting
.jpg)
21 comments:
Scott, based upon your story, Perry has elected to offer relief to about 150 in 8 years, Richards 70 in 4 years.
So, they are about the same, in that regard, with Richards being a bit more stingy, on a pardon per year basis.
Could White's and Clements' high numbers be because of prison overcrowding pressures and has anyone reviewed how much additional damage has been caused by those released by those two?
In other words, could such high numbers be bad policy and lower numbers be better policy.
That appears to be the only relevant issue, but it was never addressed.
Possibly, Scott's title should have read:
"Thankfully, Perry mostly ignores the advice of the parole board".
It was revealed that Perry agree with the parole board about 30% of the time, as if that was a small perecentage. But the readers don't know if it is, because the percentage for the other governors was not revealed.
Finally, two terms were used "clemency" and "pardon".
Are those identical in Texas or do they describe two different types of relief?
Dudley, to answer your last question first, "clemency" is a broader term inclusive of pardons, commutations, and death penalty reprieves. Most of what Texas governors give are after-the-fact pardons, which can't happen (except for actual innocence) until the offender has completed their sentence.
"Commutations," or reduced sentences, are more rare. Perry, for example, has commuted only two sentences in non-capital cases, and most of the capital ones were basically court-ordered (e.g., can't execute juveniles, etc.).
Also, fwiw, you say "the percentage for the other governors was not revealed," but I did give data for Georgia where 38% of ALL clemency requests are approved. While I don't have the information offhand for all states, we do know, for example, that Bill Clements was much more generous.
Finally, only "commutations" would reduce overcrowding, and they're a small subset of clemency requests, most of which are for pardons to restore their civil rights. I don't believe your hypothesized cause and effect about prison overcrowding and higher clemency numbers is accurate, or at least I'd be quite surprised if it's true. It'd be possible to research in the old annual reports, though they're not online prior to 2001.
By Governors, I meant the other TEXAS governers discussed, as that was the topic of the story.
The story seemed to interchange pardons and clemencies, which are very different, based upon you review.
So which is it, for all the Texas Governors?
In all the cases dsicussed, were the number of cases based upon only one or were both put together?
Just trying to see if there is an apples to apples discussion.
But, again, Perry is being more generous that Richards, Perry granting 160in 8 yrs, Rchards 70 in 4.
And is there any way to check to see the criminals records of those in Texas given clemency and/or pardon, after such was granted?
As you know, parole boards are uniquely bad at deciding who should be released, meaning, challenging their judgement is a good thing if protecting innocents is a concern.
I suspect the pardon recommendations may be just as bad, as there is no reason to presume otherwise.
Is there?
They are partially interchangeable: All pardons are "clemency"; not all acts of "clemency" are pardons.
Also, Richards was the Governor who presided over tripling the size of the prison system, so she's certainly no measuring stick on these questions in my eyes, though I know many folks put her on a pedestal.
Your comment that "parole boards are uniquely bad at deciding who should be released" deserves rebuttal, but I'll leave that to others. I realize you'd prefer to substitute YOUR judgment over theirs, but the idea that the Texas BPP are a bunch of liberal, pro-criminal softies releasing people willy nilly is just a caricature you promote for your own purposes, not an accurate representation of reality in Texas.
BTW, Merry Christmas, Dudley.
Scott:
Your make an idiotic presumption based upon your prejudice:
"I realize you'd prefer to substitute YOUR judgment over theirs, but the idea that the Texas BPP are a bunch of liberal, pro-criminal softies releasing people willy nilly is just a caricature you promote for your own purposes, not an accurate representation of reality in Texas."
Never presumed nor suggested they were liberal or pro criminal - never entered my mind.
What did enter my mind was the huge amount of damage that is done by all early releases and have often those evaluating them for release are dead wrong in their assesments, nationwide, not just in Texas.
That is why I stated I wish someone might come forward with reoffense rates for al those pardoned or given clemency.
Here's is some idea of what we might find:
"Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 94 percent of state prisoners in 1991 had committed a violent crime or been incarcerated or on probation before. Of these prisoners, 45 percent had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole. When "supervised" on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children)."
More at:
"Prisons are a bargain by any measure"
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/1996/0116crime_john-j--diiulio--jr.aspx
Merry Christmas to you, as well.
As someone who works for TDCJ in a minimum security facility, my impression is that the BPP is extremely tough in their determinations of who should go home early. Over half the offenders incarcerated today are eligible for parole. But the percentage being paroled is very low. Most of the people in prison are going to serve out their full prison term, and those who get to finish out their term on parole are likely to have served 75=80% of their time in prison regardless of never having had disciplinary infractions.
This whole topic is quite depressing to me, especially at Christmas, considering those who are locked up for long periods of time for minor substance abuse crimes.
In light of the current budget crunch, perhaps a meeting of minds could be reached on low level alcohol and drug offenses with regard to clemency as well as treatment in lieu of incarceration.
But perhaps this is just a dream worthy of the Santa Claus season.
Merry Christmas to all.
Dudley, when someone uses data that is almost 20 years old to make their argument, you'll have to excuse me if I'm a little suspicious.
I don't have the time to put into researching the issue thoroughly but in just a quick search on recividism rates, it seems much of the information I came across was from the 80s and 90s.
The first most recent study I came across was from Indiana. Here's the link - http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/05_07RecidivismRpt.pdf
The study found that, within 3 years of release 37.8% of prisoners returned to Indiana prisons. However, only 56% of those who were returned had new charges. 44% were returned for technical violations. So, I suppose you could extrapolate a 3 year recidivism rate of approximately 21%.
I find the 94% rate your information cites as hard to believe. I suspect that number has been manipulated. Where, exactly does that number come from? Just the wording of your quote shows some manipulation. Just based on your quote (I haven't looked at the site) it seems the 94% was arrived at by adding violent crimes to the number who were incarcerated or on probation before. WHy not report those numbers separately? Is there overlap there? I mean were the ones who committed violent crimes and were incarcerated or on probation before counted twice? The quote seems to imply that possibility. If that number is true it would mean that only 6 % of the people incarcerated in 1991 were first time offenders. That just seems hard to beleive. Then you say "of these prisoners" 45% committed crimes while on probation or parole. Does "of these prisoners" refer to those who had violent crimes, those who had been incarcerated for violent crimes or those on probation before, or all three? It's not clear and again, there appears to be the possiblity for double counting of some prisoners. While I haven't checked out the website, your quote raises a serious suspicion of manipulated statistics. Maybe you should look at some other, less agenda driven, unbiased sites for your stats. Unfortunately, statistics are easily manipulated by those with agendas.
Just the name of the site (Prisons are a bargain at any price) shows a bias. Surely, there are neutral studies out there you could find to support your contentions. I would be more likely to believe plain, straightforward data over an interpretation, like your quote, that is clearly spun and where the wording shows some obvious manipulation of the numbers.
Okay, I checked out the site. I don't see any cites as to where exactly the author got his stats. But, I found these quotes intersting:
"Prison definitely pays, but there's one class of criminal that is an arguable exception: low-level, first-time drug offenders."
"Still, though the numbers of petty drug offenders may prove small, it makes no sense to lock away even one drug offender whose case could be adjudicated in special drug courts and handled less expensively through intensively supervised probation featuring no-nonsense drug treatment and community service."
So, it seems even this author would advocate releasing small time drug offenders.
Maybe, just maybe, instead of adding numbers together so that we are including the same offenders multiple times to come up with an inflated and unrealistic number like 94%, we need to look at specific classes of offenders. Maybe, instead of just trying to come up with inflated stats to continue to scare the public into funding a ridiculously bloated prison system, we should be smarter about the issue. Why don't we look at which particular types of offenders and figure out which ones are most likely to reoffend. Even the author of the article cited seems to embrace that approach. Of course, like many of our societal and political issues, its easier to use hyperbole to scare people into agreeing with our position. Its much harder to actually study the problem and find realistic solutions. It's easier to throw out an inflated number like 94% than it is to try to break down and explain a complicated set of data and to derive solutions based on that data.
Okay, I wrote a long post about Dudley's stats but it didn't show up. It should have appeared before the previous comment.
The numbers Dudley cites appear to be manipulated. The 94% number just doesn’t seem to be credible. The quote itself implies some manipulation. The 94% seems to include both those incarcerated for violent crimes and those who were previously incarcerated or on probation. This means one offender could be counted 3 times in those numbers if he committed violent crime, was previously incarcerated, and had been on probation before. The 94% number would imply, that in 1991 only 6% of those incarcerated were first time offenders. I find that hard to believe. The 45% number is also probably manipulated. It say “of these offenders”. Which offenders – those who committed violent, crimes, those who were previously incarcerated, those on probation? It seems this could also include double or triple counting.
The article Dudley quotes shows a bias just in its title. Unfortunately, stats can be easily manipulated when one has an agenda. Why not cite some unbiased, straightforward stats to make your point instead of pulling a quote from a biased source that has some obvious manipulation.
Its hard to find recent data. I found a study from Indiana that shows in 2007 37.8% of offenders were reincarcerated within 3 years. Of those 44% were for technical violations, 56 % were for new crimes. That would seem to indicate a recidivism rate of approximately 21%.
The article dudley cites was written in 1996. Since that time, incarceration rates have grown, we've passed more and more criminal statutes, the cost to incarcerate a prisoner has risen, yet, how much progress have we made? Has this solution worked?
Here are some more recent statistics from an unbiased source, the Dept of Justice. Although, they are from 2000, so still a bit dated.
In 1999 the percentage of those leaving probation with successful completion was 61%.
Those returned to incarceration were 14%. (This is a far cry from the 94% cited by Dudley). Only 4% returned with a new sentence. (That seems to really imply that Dudley's 94% stat is really misleading)
Those successfully completing parole were 43%.
Those on parole who were returned to incarceration was 42%. Those returning with a new sentence were only 11%.
Between the DOJ and Indiana stats, a recividism rate between 11% and 21% is indicated. By the way the DOJ stats show Texas had the largest number of people on probation at 447,100 (remember this was 11 years ago).
Here’s the link for the DOJ info: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pp99pr.pdf
Here’s the link for the Indiana info: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/05_07RecidivismRpt.pdf
Here are some more recent statistics from an unbiased source, the Dept of Justice. Although, they are from 2000, so still a bit dated.
In 1999 the percentage of those leaving probation with successful completion was 61%.
Those returned to incarceration were 14%. (This is a far cry from the 94% cited by Dudley). Only 4% returned with a new sentence. (That seems to really imply that Dudley's 94% stat is really misleading)
Those successfully completing parole were 43%.
Those on parole who were returned to incarceration was 42%. Those returning with a new sentence were only 11%.
Between the DOJ and Indiana stats, a recividism rate between 11% and 21% is indicated. By the way the DOJ stats show Texas had the largest number of people on probation at 447,100 (remember this was 11 years ago).
Here’s the link for the DOJ info: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pp99pr.pdf
Here’s the link for the Indiana info: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/05_07RecidivismRpt.pdf
We have prisons to protect society from dangerous people. There are people serving prison sentences who are not dangerous and could legitimately be released under clemency or whatever. What you need is someone who can see the difference. Unfortunately, Texas now has a governor who thinks the Anthony Graves case shows the system works. Someone with that kind of judgment shouldn't be trusted with anything.
I was recently having a conversation with someone about people in prison and heard the story of a lady who is serving a seven year sentence for shooting the man who raped her daughter. The man didn't die, he was later killed in prison. I was thinking that if I had been on the jury I wouldn't have given her any prison time. This lady would not be a danger to anyone if she were released and would probably be an excellent case for clemency.
A governor should be able to distinguish between these types of case and the people who are truly dangerous and need to be kept locked up. Unfortunately, I think the current governor, like too many other folks, see any person who is involved with the criminal justice system in any way as scum and say just lock them all up and throw away the key. A governor shold have more discernment than that.
I'm having trouble posting so these ended up out of order. This should be before 3:30 which should be before 2:29.
Okay, I wrote a long post about Dudley's stats but it didn't show up. It should have appeared before the previous comment.
The numbers Dudley cites appear to be manipulated. The 94% number just doesn’t seem to be credible. The quote itself implies some manipulation. The 94% seems to include both those incarcerated for violent crimes and those who were previously incarcerated or on probation. This means one offender could be counted 3 times in those numbers if he committed violent crime, was previously incarcerated, and had been on probation before. The 94% number would imply, that in 1991 only 6% of those incarcerated were first time offenders. I find that hard to believe. The 45% number is also probably manipulated. It say “of these offenders”. Which offenders – those who committed violent, crimes, those who were previously incarcerated, those on probation? It seems this could also include double or triple counting.
The article Dudley quotes shows a bias just in its title. Unfortunately, stats can be easily manipulated when one has an agenda. Why not cite some unbiased, straightforward stats to make your point instead of pulling a quote from a biased source that has some obvious manipulation.
Its hard to find recent data. I found a study from Indiana that shows in 2007 37.8% of offenders were reincarcerated within 3 years. Of those 44% were for technical violations, 56 % were for new crimes. That would seem to indicate a recidivism rate of approximately 21%.
The article dudley cites was written in 1996. Since that time, incarceration rates have grown, we've passed more and more criminal statutes, the cost to incarcerate a prisoner has risen, yet, how much progress have we made? Has this solution worked?
If you bozos would read what I actually posted and understand what the 94% actually was accurately describing, maybe you could earn stars in your folder!!!
They are not my numbers they are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and they are accurate.
Make some small effort.
Please.
Mr. Sharp. It is you who needs to read. As I said, I read the 1996 article. The numbers are clearly spun and don't in any way match the DOJ numbers from 1999 (see the link above). I think you are the Bozo that needs to make a little effort and read. It takes little effort to pull a couple of quotes from an article. It takes more effort to actually look at the real stats. You need to make a little effort. Come on, use your brain a little, the 94% doesn't even make sense.
Here's what I originally wrote when I was having trouble posting:
Okay, I wrote a long post about Dudley's stats but it didn't show up. It should have appeared before the previous comment.
The numbers Dudley cites appear to be manipulated. The 94% number just doesn’t seem to be credible. The quote itself implies some manipulation. The 94% seems to include both those incarcerated for violent crimes and those who were previously incarcerated or on probation. This means one offender could be counted 3 times in those numbers if he committed violent crime, was previously incarcerated, and had been on probation before. The 94% number would imply, that in 1991 only 6% of those incarcerated were first time offenders. I find that hard to believe. The 45% number is also probably manipulated. It say “of these offenders”. Which offenders – those who committed violent, crimes, those who were previously incarcerated, those on probation? It seems this could also include double or triple counting.
The article Dudley quotes shows a bias just in its title. Unfortunately, stats can be easily manipulated when one has an agenda. Why not cite some unbiased, straightforward stats to make your point instead of pulling a quote from a biased source that has some obvious manipulation.
Its hard to find recent data. I found a study from Indiana that shows in 2007 37.8% of offenders were reincarcerated within 3 years. Of those 44% were for technical violations, 56 % were for new crimes. That would seem to indicate a recidivism rate of approximately 21%.
The article dudley cites was written in 1996. Since that time, incarceration rates have grown, we've passed more and more criminal statutes, the cost to incarcerate a prisoner has risen, yet, how much progress have we made? Has this solution worked?
Mr. Sharp. Its you who needs to read. I read the article. The 94% is a bogus number. I challenge you to provide a cite to the Justice dept stats that back it up. You won't find it because the Bozo who wrote the article added some numbers together to paint a false picture. I tried to explain that in an earlier post but I'm having trouble getting things to post this evening. I'll try posting it in a separate post again.
The numbers Dudley cites appear to be manipulated. The 94% number just doesn’t seem to be credible. The quote itself implies some manipulation. The 94% seems to include both those incarcerated for violent crimes and those who were previously incarcerated or on probation. This means one offender could be counted 3 times in those numbers if he committed violent crime, was previously incarcerated, and had been on probation before. The 94% number would imply, that in 1991 only 6% of those incarcerated were first time offenders. I find that hard to believe. The 45% number is also probably manipulated. It say “of these offenders”. Which offenders – those who committed violent, crimes, those who were previously incarcerated, those on probation? It seems this could also include double or triple counting.
The article Dudley quotes shows a bias just in its title. Unfortunately, stats can be easily manipulated when one has an agenda. Why not cite some unbiased, straightforward stats to make your point instead of pulling a quote from a biased source that has some obvious manipulation.
Here's some stats I found from the Indiana study that I think didn't make it into the previous post. You'll find the link above.
I also challenge you to look at the link to the DOJ stats I provided above and show me how, in any way that equates to Bozo's 94%.
Its hard to find recent data. I found a study from Indiana that shows in 2007 37.8% of offenders were reincarcerated within 3 years. Of those 44% were for technical violations, 56 % were for new crimes. That would seem to indicate a recidivism rate of approximately 21%.
"They are not my numbers they are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and they are accurate."
Prove it. Provide the link to the actual stats. Or is that too much "effort" for ya, Dudley.
Anon is, evidently, unaware that his numbers from different studies, are quite similar to these findings.
94% of state prisoners incarcerated in 1991 had committed
1) a violent crime or
2) had been incarcerated before or
3) had been on probation before.
Pretty clear. It doesn't say "and" it says or. And it is clear that it is speaking of 94% of the total of all state prisoners from 1991, not thrice counted individuals.
Anon, that is why I said try to read "and" understand, as opposed to "or".
You also said you can't believe that only 6% were 1st time offenders.
Actually, it is very easy to believe. However, if you noted item 1, above, it doesn't exclude 1st time offenders, as the others do.
Anyone who has any involvement in criminal justice would find these numbers to be expected.
Of those prisoners. Anon does know what "of those prisoners" refers to.
It refers to the previous sentence, in the same paragraph of course, which is a specific reference to the 94%. As I said, read "and" understand, not "or".
Again, of those 94% of prisoners from 1991,
1) 45 percent (or 42% of all of those incarcerated in 1991) had committed their latest crimes while free on probation or parole.
That is 42% of all the state prisoners incarcerated in 1991. Numbers very cosistent with what you produced. Did you notice? Anon, make some effort.
BTW, your Indiana study found for 38%, as a reincarceration rate for just 3 years.
The 42% from DiIulio's BJS study is for all prisoners, with no time limit for re-incarceration.
42% vs 38%.
Of course, both percentages are equally believable.
When "supervised" on the streets, they inflicted at least 218,000 violent crimes, including 13,200 murders and 11,600 rapes (more than half of the rapes against children)."
Post a Comment