Dear Editor,
The pardon debate is vital to this nation. It is use of presidential power that cannot be left unchecked, particularity in a nation saddled with a constitutional system defined by executive/presidential domination. What point is there to having a judiciary if the executive/presidency can use the pardon in such an excessive and secretive fashion? Pastor W P Jeffrey, a criminologist, recently asserted Guyana’s rate of recidivism is upwards of 70% (‘It is difficult for overseas Guyanese offering skills to break into the inner circle of bureaucracy,’ SN, Jan 1). Using the pardon in excessive and furtive fashion in any society with such a terrible rate of recidivism and with high rates of criminality cannot be in the national interest or in advancement of national security. Those factors alone impose conditions on the use and scale of presidential pardons and demand the publication of pardon details.
On the issue of scale of pardons, President Granger, leader of a country with a criminal population of roughly 2000 criminals of which 1280 are incarcerated and the rest on probation or parole, has reportedly pardoned roughly 71 criminals in seven months. Barack Obama, leader of a country with a criminal population of around 7 million of which 2.3 million are incarcerated and the rest on probation or parole, has pardoned or commuted the convictions of 61 criminals in 7 years. George W Bush pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 200 people during his term. Bill Clinton pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 459 people during his term. George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford pardoned, commuted or rescinded the convictions of 77, 406, 566 and 409 people respectively during their terms. At this rate, President Granger could rack up 600 secret pardons by the time the 2020 election comes around.
An important distinction must be made between a pardon and commutation of sentence. Commutation of sentence is the reduction of a sentence. However, unlike a pardon the conviction under a commutation of sentence is not nullified. Many of the US presidents commute sentences as opposed to granting outright pardons. Again, it is hard to tell whether there were any commutation of sentences versus pardons in Guyana’s case, although the public statements strongly suggest outright pardons were involved. Finally, there has been major debate on the ethnic balance (or imbalance) of US presidential pardons. In a country like ours where ethnic balance is essential considering the abuses under previous PPP and PNC regimes and the recent disproportion in the state board appointments, public information on pardons allows for vital debate to be had on whether there is imbalance in this regard, and in forcing governments now and in the future to take questions of balance into account. Those debates can only occur if information is made public.
Yours faithfully,
M Maxwell
