Abuse of the Pardon Power: A Legal and Economic Perspective
![handle is hein.journals/depbcl1 and id is 113 raw text is: Abuse of the Pardon Power: A Legal and
Economic Perspective
Jaired Stallard*
I. INTRODUCTION
In light of the recent controversy surrounding former President
Clinton's pardons of Marc Rich and others whom the public perceived
to be unworthy of a pardon,' questions arise about the proper scope
and the appropriate use of the pardon power. However, this is not the
first time this power has been questioned and is not likely to be the
last. In recent times, Presidents Ford,2 Carter,3 and George Bush, Sr.4
were all criticized for pardons they granted. Why would a President
grant a controversial pardon during his last days in Washington, when
most Presidents spend time during the last few months in the oval
office trying to solidify the legacy of their presidency? Although this
question is puzzling, an application of economic principles to the deci-
sion making process of a President can shed light on the reasons par-
dons are granted.
The purpose of this article is to use economic principles to analyze
the use of the pardon power. Economic models that illustrate the
preferences of a President highlight the situations in which a President
* J.D./M.B.A. from DePaul University, Summer 2002.
1. Many different forms of pardons and derivatives of the pardon power have been granted
including general pardons, conditional pardons, and amnesties. The purpose of this paper is to
describe why the President decides to grant a pardon, in any of its many forms. An explanation
of the history and use of each of these different pardons is beyond the scope of this article.
2. See James Warren, Nixon's Hoffa pardon Has an Odor, CHI. TRIB., April 8, 2001, § 2, at 3.
Warren states that the pardon granted by Nixon to Hoffa was heavily influenced by self-serving
: . . political considerations involving his [Nixon's] 1972 re-election campaign. Id. For more
information on the facts of the Hoffa pardon see Leonard Boudin, The Presidential Pardons of
James R. Hoffa and Richard M. Nixon: Have the Limitations on the Pardon Power been Ex-
ceeded?, 48 U. COLO. L. REV. 1, 21-34 (1976).
3. See Daniel T. Kobil, The Quality of Mercy Strained: Wrestling the Pardoning Power from
the King, 69 TEx. L. REV. 569, 617 (1991). President Ford's pardon of Nixon is agreed to be a
contributing factor in Ford's 1976 Presidential Election defeat. Ford's approval rating was 66%
before the pardon of Nixon and 50% following the pardon. See Boudin supra note 2, at 2 n. 9.
4. See Walsh Soldiers On, TiME, Feb. 22, 1993, at 15. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh
stated that the granting of six pardons to individuals involved in the Iran-Contra Affair were
politically motivated, prevented Bush from testifying as a witness in the trials of the individuals,
and was a grave disservice to the country. Id.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/depbcl1&div=11&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Abuse of the Pardon Power: A Legal and Economic Perspective
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most