January 18, 2012
 I found an article in USA TODAY's January 17, 2012 edition.  You can find it on page 8A under the "Today's debate:  Clemency".  The article is titled "Pardon us, governer, but what were you thinking?".    Let me tell you a little about the article.  I was unable to determine who had actually written the article or I would happily give them credit for their work.  I'll give you a brief idea about the article, please keep in mind that this is not direct quotes from the article itself, but is information within the article and is not my work.  Outgoing Mississippi governer Haley Barbour recently paroled 215 prisoners, including three rapists, a few armed robbers, drunk drivers who had killed with their cars, and even some murderers.  Barbour is a conservative Republican who recently finished his second and last term as governer.  The controversy centers around the facts that a large number of the parolees were violent criminals, he gave no public notice to the victims' families, and he did it in the last moments of his term.  Under the U.S. Constitution presidents have the authority to grant pardons, and under some state constitutions governers have this same power.  When someone is pardoned there crimes are essentially erased, and they are given back freedoms that were taken away upon their conviction.  Things like the right to vote, and the freedom to purchase a GUN.  As you can imagine people all over the nation are upset with his actions.  The only reason for his actions seems to be the fact that as Christian Barbour believes in second chances.  There is more to this story, but you can get a basic idea of what the controversy is about.

Okay, so this is the part where I tell you what I think.  If Governer Barbour has such strong religous convictions and believes that granting pardons to violent criminals is the right thing to do, why did he wait to the end of his term as governer to do this?  This is not really the constitutional issue, but it's what I want to know.  If you believe in something to that degree why not do it at the beginning of his career?  You all know why.  He would never have been re-elected and his political career would have been flushed down the toilet.  I do believe that pardons serve a great purpose but I am less sure that pardoning violent criminals is what it was intended for.  There are those who do earn the right to begin again.  I know I have read a few stories in my life and believed it was appropriate in some of the situations to support their pardon.  I do not think that it serves any great purpose to allow someone who murdered another human being to have their crime erased.  I think I agree with the writer of the article.  Pardons are powerful tools and when used judiciously they can make up for the mistakes that are bound to take place within the judicial system.  I just cannot see, from where I sit, that this is the case with these pardons.  It is sad that the victims and their families do not get a pardon and cannot start their life over again with everything made right.  They continue on with out their loves ones and no body even asks what they think....at least not Governer Barbour.  What do you think?