News FeedThoughts on Pardoning Prisoners and Executive Clemency
My wife, Carole, received questions from Maya Schenwar, a reporter at Truthout.org who was writing about the pardoning process. Ms. Schenwar asked Carole about experiences we have had with our efforts to seek a Presidential commutation of sentence. The reporter and her readers were interested in changes to the executive clemency process under President Obama’s administration.
The reporter first asked for a brief description of my case, efforts I’ve made to seek a pardon, and the types of responses that have come from those efforts.
Readers should know that I seek a commutation of sentence, which is distinguished from a Presidential pardon. A Presidential pardon is an actual forgiveness of the offense. I do not seek such consideration. Rather I gear my efforts toward a request for President Obama to commute my sentence to time served.
I serve a 45-year prison term as a consequence of my convictions related to the distribution of cocaine. I was arrested in 1987, when I was 23-years-old. This has been my only period of incarceration, and there was no violence or weapons involved with my case. The government acknowledged through my presentence investigation report that since only consenting adults were a part of my crime, there were not any victims.
I first filed for a commutation of sentence in 1993, after President Clinton was sworn in for his first term. I had served the first six years of my sentence, and I hoped the record I was building and the efforts I was making to earn freedom would qualify me for consideration. I believe it was 1995 when I received word from my Case Manager that my petition for commutation had been denied. I was not given an explanation, and as a prisoner, I was not entitled to a reason. I continued.
In 2003, Carole honored me with her hand in marriage. By then I had served 16 years in prison. I had earned an undergraduate degree from Mercer University and a graduate degree from Hofstra University. Through my published writings, I had made meaningful contributions to society. The record I had built as a long-term prisoner, I believed, demonstrated my commitment to living a law-abiding life. I owed it to Carole to at least try to advance my release date by submitting a second petition.
I was not optimistic about the prospect for relief. President Bush was in office. His administration did not show much in the way of leadership with this controversial issue of using the executive-clemency powers of the Presidency. Nevertheless, we prepared our petition and submitted it to the pardon attorney without guidance from legal counsel.
In March of 2007, four years after we had submitted the petition, action had not been taken. Carole had called the office of the pardon attorney numerous times. Each time, a Deputy Pardon Attorney told her that my petition was being reviewed and was under consideration. Neither of us received word as to what being under consideration meant.
Nevertheless, I had made significant progress with Carole’s help during the interim four years that had passed since we initially filed the petition. Administrators had dropped my security level to minimum and transferred me to a prison camp without physical boundaries. Publishers had brought three of my books to market, and I was contributing meaningful literature to universities across America. Because of those changes that we believed distinguished my case from those of other long-term prisoners, Carole and I updated my clemency petition.
Over the past two years, the office of the pardon attorney has been remarkably consistent with its uncommunicativeness. Carole has read news reports that thousands of clemency petitions have been on file with no action taken. Advancements with my sentence, together with the change in leadership, compelled us to file another update to my petition. We filed my newest petition for commutation on March 1, 2009.
The reporter, Ms. Schenwar, asked why we think the power of the pardon has been used so sparingly in recent years. From my perspective, the answer was clearly politics. Since the days of the Reagan presidency, the pardoning process has been contaminated, or influenced by marketing campaigns for elective office. President Jimmy Carter was the last President to consider requests for clemency on the merits of each petition. Since then, decisions with regard to executive clemency seemed to have been set aside because of the vulnerability such decisions would cause in making the candidate, or the political party, appear weak on crime.
During the Bush 41 election, part of the campaign strategy was to incite voter fears on soft-on-crime decisions. The notorious Willie Horton advertisements doomed the candidacy of Michael Dukakis. Since then, politicians have been positioning themselves to win the tough-on-crime race. Being tough on crime was inconsistent with offering clemency. Thus, we have had less leadership on this issue and more politics.
There is some irony in that our nation’s prison population has grown by more than 400 percent since President Carter was in office, yet recent presidents have decimated the number of executive grants they have issued. Conservatism does not feel so compassionate to those in prison. We have become much more punitive.
Ms. Schenwar also asked whether certain prisoners were more likely than others to receive acts of executive clemency. Clearly, the rich, powerful, well-connected offenders have an advantage. They have the resources and network in place to obtain access to the President’s advisors, or sometimes to the President himself. A prisoner who can marshal lawyers or people of influence to lobby on his behalf can make a more personal case than a poor Hispanic prisoner who argues the merits of his case from deep within the recesses of a federal prison.
Obviously, people like Scooter Libby and Marc Rich had an advantage over the thousands of other prisoners who languish in prison. Neither of them even saw the inside of a federal prison, despite their convictions and sentences. Others, like the Puerto Rican group whose members were convicted of domestic terrorism, had political clout they could muster. Some have the advocacy of activist groups like FAMM, or influential people like entertainers and politicians to lobby on their behalf.
Those who can muster support, or intermediaries who will advocate on their behalf, can advance their petitions for clemency. Carole and I have not been as successful in persuading others to support our petition for clemency. Frankly, under the Bush presidency we did not have hope for relief. We therefore concentrated our energy on making contributions to society and on preparing for the challenges that I will confront after a quarter century of confinement. Now that our country has new leadership under President Obama, we intend to place more focus on my petition for clemency. We will be watching to see whether President Obama appoints a new pardon attorney, and we will seek opportunities to bring more attention and support to my petition for clemency. Meanwhile, we will remain grounded and continue efforts to prepare for the obstacles ahead.
Finally, Ms. Schenwar asked what concrete steps President Obama could take to begin the clemency process. My opinion is that people at the local level ought to have an opportunity to evaluate each candidate. I am a fan of what I have read of the ombudsman panels in Scandinavian countries. Those countries invite citizens to participate in the evaluation of prisoners. I would like to present my case to American citizens.
In federal prison, rules prohibit prison staff from taking a position of expressing support for prisoners. That means the people who oversee a prisoner’s daily adjustment cannot comment on his efforts to earn freedom. We need more transparency in the system.
I’d also like the President to authorize an objective vetting process. Prisoners who reach certain milestones through their adjustments should earn a higher degree of access or consideration. For example, a prisoner who has served a higher percentage of time, and made significant efforts to reconcile with society ought to advance his petition for consideration on merit. Wealth, power, and influence should not trump individual efforts of the poor and oppressed classes who labor to earn freedom.
Those are my suggestions. I am hopeful that we will see progress with regard to new efficiencies in the office of the pardon attorney. More than 200,000 people are locked in federal prison, and I feel strongly that prisoners need objective mechanisms through which they should be encouraged to work toward earning freedom. The pardon process should not be a political process in an enlightened society.
I urged readers to support my petition for clemency by writing a letter on my behalf.
Letters supporting a presidential commutation for Michael G. Santos should be directed to the President of the United States and mailed to the Office of the Pardon Attorney. Letters must reference Michael’s full name and registration number. You may use the following as a guide for beginning your letter.
Date:
Ronald L. Rodgers, Pardon Attorney
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 11000
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Inmate Michael G. Santos #16377-004
Petition for Commutation of Sentence
Dear President Obama:
(body of your letter follows)
Carole –what is the exact address to where I could send a ltr?
Hi Tallie,
Here is the contact information and example opening to letter of support you can use. Thanks!
Date:
Ronald L. Rodgers, Pardon Attorney
1425 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 11000
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Inmate Michael G. Santos, #16377-004
Petition for Commutation of Sentence
Dear President Obama:
(body of your letter follows)