Presidential Pardons and Race

[Puppycow]

Pro Publica recently published the results of a year-long study of presidential pardons and who gets them. Although the process seems to be fairly opaque and arbitrary, one thing they found was that your chances of obtaining a presidential pardon have been much higher if you are white than if you are black, by about 4 times. This is not just the raw numbers, BTW. This is for candidates with very similar profiles and similar crimes. The raw numbers are actually even more lopsided, with about 12% of pardon requests granted for whites vs. only 1% for blacks.

White criminals seeking presidential pardons over the past decade have been nearly four times as likely to succeed as minorities, a ProPublica examination has found.

Blacks have had the poorest chance of receiving the president's ultimate act of mercy, according to an analysis of previously unreleased records and related data [3].
. . .
In multiple cases, white and black pardon applicants who committed similar offenses and had comparable post-conviction records experienced opposite outcomes.

An African American woman from Little Rock, fined $3,000 for underreporting her income in 1989, was denied a pardon; a white woman from the same city who faked multiple tax returns to collect more than $25,000 in refunds got one. A black, first-time drug offender -- a Vietnam veteran who got probation in South Carolina for possessing 1.1 grams of crack - was turned down. A white, fourth-time drug offender who did prison time for selling 1,050 grams of methamphetamine was pardoned.

All of the drug offenders forgiven during the Bush administration at the pardon attorney's recommendation - 34 of them - were white.

 

[Puppycow]

Although they didn't focus on it, there are hints that there's also a religious bias:

Years later, Armstead and Leggett each applied for a pardon. On paper, both were strong candidates. They had accepted responsibility in court and completed their sentences with good behavior.

Neither had any other criminal convictions. Both were active in their churches. Leggett and Armstead had both filled out lengthy applications in which they listed their crime, punishment and professional and personal history.

In April 2006, Bush followed the pardon attorney's recommendation and approved a pardon for Leggett. A year later, Bush again followed the attorney's advice and turned down Armstead.

Being active in a church is considered to make one more worthy of a pardon.
A letter from a pastor probably carries some weight too. The more politically important the pastor, the better.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Although they didn't focus on it, there are hints that there's also a religious bias:



Being active in a church is considered to make one more worthy of a pardon.
A letter from a pastor probably carries some weight too. The more politically important the pastor, the better.

??? Is there something I'm missing from that narrative? They both were church members. One was pardoned the other wasn't. I don't see any difference between their cases.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Why do you have to see them as "black" and "white"? Don't you know colour-blindness is all the rage in this post-racial society?

Pardons are one of those powers that I've never understood. But it doesn't surprise me that it is as racially dysfunctional as the rest of the justice system. This bit here makes it seem like a class issue as well, like usual:

Turning over pardons to career officials has not removed money and politics from the process, the analysis found. Justice Department documents show that nearly 200 members of Congress from both parties contacted the pardons office regarding pending cases. In multiple instances, felons and their families made campaign contributions to the lawmakers supporting their pleas. Applicants with congressional support were three times as likely to be pardoned, the statistical analysis shows.

In reviewing applicants, pardon lawyers rely on their discretion in ways that favor people who are married and who have never divorced, declared bankruptcy or taken on large amounts of debt. The intent, officials say, is to reward people who demonstrated "stability" after their convictions. But the effect has been to exclude large segments of society.

 

[Puppycow]

??? Is there something I'm missing from that narrative? They both were church members. One was pardoned the other wasn't. I don't see any difference between their cases.

It says, "On paper, both were strong candidates." They then list off a number of things in support of this statement, one of which is that "Both were active in their churches." Hence, being active in a church is implied to be a factor that makes one a strong candidate on paper.

ETA: This is not a point that Pro Publica is trying to make. It's something I'm inferring both from the information given and my own knowledge and experience of human behavior. They may (or may not) think that it's entirely appropriate that being active in a church is considered as a relevant factor in whether or not someone is deserving of a pardon. I do not.

 

[sarge]

It says, "On paper, both were strong candidates." They then list off a number of things in support of this statement, one of which is that "Both were active in their churches." Hence, being active in a church is implied to be a factor that makes one a strong candidate on paper.

ETA: This is not a point that Pro Publica is trying to make. It's something I'm inferring both from the information given and my own knowledge and experience of human behavior. They may (or may not) think that it's entirely appropriate that being active in a church is considered as a relevant factor in whether or not someone is deserving of a pardon. I do not.

If his confusion has the same source as mine, it is this:

You seemed to be using these two felons as examples to illustrate a religous bias in pardon approvals, yet the two persons are equally religious. Try it this way:

Black Americans suffer from an institutional bias when seeking a home loan. Frank (who is black) was able to get a loan, while Tom (who is black) was not able to get a loan. That's how it read to me.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If his confusion has the same source as mine, it is this:

You seemed to be using these two felons as examples to illustrate a religous bias in pardon approvals, yet the two persons are equally religious. Try it this way:

Black Americans suffer from an institutional bias when seeking a home loan. Frank (who is black) was able to get a loan, while Tom (who is black) was not able to get a loan. That's how it read to me.

I think the point is that they considered church attendance in the first place.