By
Lora Mackel
Bill Clinton savored and used every last millisecond of his presidency to push forth his own agenda. On Saturday morning, that agenda included pardoning more than 140 people, a decision that he and his staff labored over for hours on Friday night and into Saturday morning. The list of the final candidates for clemency included quite a few politicos, including Arizona's own Fife Symington.
Article II, Section 2 of our constitution affords the president this special power, and leaves the particularities of the power up to the discretion of the president. What is clear from the list of those pardoned by the former president is that white-collar, well-connected people are more likely to be pardoned than their blue-collar counterparts. The thesis in itself is not revolutionary. Anyone with common sense could come to similar conclusions on their own. But is this the way things should be? Are presidential pardons not just another manifestation of the socio-economic bias in our country's criminal justice system?
On Jan. 19 and 20, former President Clinton was in a forgiving mood, having himself been made immune from prosecution in an eleventh-hour deal cut with the office of the special prosecutor. Having only been stripped of his law license for five years, Clinton wanted to spread that love and forgiveness around. The question is, who benefited? One of the few lucky applicants for clemency happened to be an ex-fund-raiser of the president, Arnold Paul Prosperi, who embezzled money from his law clients. Others who made the list were people who had committed security fraud and fled to Switzerland - one of which had a wife who works closely with the Democratic National Committee. They also included illegal-arms dealers, insider traders, perjurers and tax evaders.
One of the most high profile beneficiaries of the president's forgiveness, Patty Hearst, already had her sentence commuted by Carter, but had it virtually erased by Clinton's pardon. Never mind that the amount of time Ms. Hearst spent in jail still was far less than the average non-violent drug offender. Was it the well-financed legal team and social circles that she associated with that made her more deserving?
And don't worry, drug offenders didn't escape the attention of the president. Roger Clinton's 1985 cocaine distributing charge was pardoned by his brother. Clinton pardoned many other drug offenders that he thought were being abused by the maximum/minimum sentencing structure, but by and large, Clinton turned his merciful attention to those in his immediate circle.
Each year, thousands of people apply to receive presidential pardons. There is even an Internet site designed to usher people through the 12-step process, the idea being that every citizen who can demonstrate the proper amount of contrition can receive clemency.
But that is not the reality. People who are inside the president's circle are far more likely to have their punishments dropped by the president. The poor and those without dream-team attorneys stand a small chance of receiving pardons from the president.
Thankfully, presidents are not the only ones with power to pardon. Governors have this special executive power, but the trends in presidential pardoning also exist there. Just as in other parts of criminal justice, who you are, what you look like and how much money you make affect the likelihood of whether you are pardoned.
Our new president has called upon each of us to behave first as citizens, making all of us theoretically equals. If this is what he truly means, then his administration must start to actively address the disparities in the way laws are enforced in our country. We cannot keep prosecuting blue-collar criminals as though their crimes are more heinous than their white-collar counterparts. The way former President Clinton handed out his pardons is indicative of the ways in which the American justice system is flawed.
Lora Mackel is a history senior. She can be reached at perspectives@wildcat.arizona.edu.
