By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Biden granted clemency to nearly 1,800 individuals, representing the largest single-day act of clemency in modern history. This included approximately 1,500 commutations for those who completed home confinement sentences initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic and 39 pardons for nonviolent offenses. The actions followed a pardon for Biden’s son, Hunter, and are expected to be followed by further clemency grants before the end of his term. These actions reflect Biden’s stated commitment to providing second chances and addressing sentencing disparities.
Read the original article here
Biden’s recent act of clemency, commuting roughly 1,500 sentences and pardoning 39 individuals, represents the largest single-day use of this power in presidential history. This unprecedented move highlights the immense authority vested in the executive branch, a power likened to the ancient practice of an emperor granting freedom with a simple gesture. The sheer scale of the action is striking, dwarfing even Barack Obama’s second-largest single-day clemency effort of 330 in 2017. This makes Biden’s action a truly significant event, demanding careful consideration of its implications.
The vast number of sentences commuted raises questions about the selection criteria. While the lack of a readily available list detailing the offenses involved makes comprehensive analysis challenging, the President’s intention to continue reviewing clemency petitions suggests a broader approach to addressing past injustices. The hope is that this process will continue throughout his term, leading to a substantial impact on the lives of many individuals.
Many are pondering whether this approach is the most effective method of reforming the justice system. Some argue that decriminalizing certain offenses would be a more comprehensive and long-lasting solution, preventing future convictions for minor or trivial infractions. This would address the root causes of mass incarceration, rather than simply addressing the consequences after the fact. The challenge, however, lies in the legislative process necessary for decriminalization, a process that involves Congress and is not solely within the President’s power.
The power of presidential pardon itself has sparked considerable debate. Some believe that such authority should be drastically curtailed, perhaps implemented through a committee system to ensure thorough review and prevent potential abuse. Others argue that this power acts as a vital check on a potentially overzealous judicial system, serving as a final recourse against injustice. This perspective recognizes the possibility of wrongful convictions or disproportionately harsh sentencing.
There are concerns, however, that the pardon power can be misused. The potential for politically motivated pardons, benefiting allies or family members, has fueled skepticism and accusations of corruption. This concern is particularly relevant given past instances where presidents have used clemency for personal gain. The public perception of presidential pardons can be deeply influenced by such controversies.
The contrasting approaches of different presidents further complicate this debate. While some presidents use the power sparingly and judiciously, others utilize it more liberally. This inconsistency underscores the inherent subjectivity involved in clemency decisions. The fact that Biden’s action is immediately compared to previous administrations, most notably Trump’s, further highlights the inherent political dimension of such decisions.
The current debate surrounding Biden’s actions also highlights the significant difference between commuting a sentence and granting a full pardon. Commuting a sentence reduces the severity of the punishment, while a pardon eliminates the conviction altogether. The distinction is crucial in understanding the scope and impact of Biden’s unprecedented action. The sheer volume of commuted sentences raises concerns about the severity of the crimes involved and the criteria used for selection, especially given the lack of publicly available detailed information.
The discussion further extends to questions of fairness and equity within the justice system. The concern is raised that “non-violent” crimes encompass a wide range of severity, with some being far more serious than others. The lack of transparency surrounding the selection criteria further fuels this concern. In the absence of clear criteria, the process appears arbitrary, leading to questions of consistency and fairness in the application of justice.
There is no denying that Biden’s action has generated significant debate. Some view it as a bold step toward addressing systemic issues within the justice system, providing a second chance to those who may have been unfairly or disproportionately punished. Others remain critical, questioning the selection process, the scope of the clemency, and the potential for political bias. Ultimately, the lasting impact of Biden’s actions will depend not only on its immediate effects but also on the broader systemic reforms that follow. Whether this serves as a catalyst for larger-scale change or simply a temporary measure remains to be seen. The discussion will undoubtedly continue, shaping future debates about the power and responsibility inherent in presidential clemency.