About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

47 Harbinger 1 (2022-2023)

handle is hein.journals/harbg47 and id is 1 raw text is: IMPARTIALITY IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE OKLAHOMA PARDON AND PAROLE BOARD DAVID RAY FLEENOR The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board's (The Board) structure precludes it from evaluating incarcerated people's parole cases in an impartial manner, which violates The Board's statutory mandate and incarcerated people's right to fair and impartial hearings. If successful in my litigation against The Board for infringing on this right, I will be the first incarcerated person in Oklahoma history to win a legal decision against The Board. It is the opinion of this writer that no inmate' confined in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections will ever receive a fundamentally fair and impartial clemency hearing from the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, so long as both of the state's highest courts are permitted to appoint retired judges, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, as well as district attorneys, and law enforcement, to this executive board. Oklahoma's Pardon and Parole Board (The Board) was created in 1944 by a constitutional amendment during the administration of Governor Robert S. Kerr. The purpose of the Board's creation was to cool the moral passions of a citizenry that felt ethically betrayed by former Governor Leon Phillips.2 The public was outraged after learning that Governor Phillips had granted clemency to a physician, serving a life sentence for murder, stemming from an illegal abortion.3 In an attempt to restore confidence in the executive, the authors of the constitutional amendment felt compelled to significantly limit the clemency power of the Governor, by requiring the newly created Board to make an impartial investigation and then recommend to the Governor only the inmates that the Board deemed worthy of clemency.4 At first glance, the constitutional amendment does not appear to create an irreconcilable conflict with any part of Oklahoma's Constitution, presuming, of course, that the duties prescribed in Article VI, Section 10 are performed in a lawful and ethical manner.5 However, a closer look at the Board's composition reveals an David Ray Fleenor was a 24-year-old, first time felon, when twelve strangers - without special skill or training - recommended that he spend the remainder of his natural life in prison without review, after being found guilty of his first felony offense. 1 Editor's note: The Harbinger recognizes that many people who are incarcerated prefer not to be referred to as inmates. We defer to the author's language in this case. 2 See 2B Vernon's Okla. Forms 2d, Crim. Prac. & Proc. § 34.3. 3 See Bobby Ross Jr., Clemency board draws critics, The Oklahoman (May 29, 2000, 12:00 AM), https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2000/05/29/clemency-board-draws-critics/62196126007/ (referencing a paper by Attorney Gary Peterson on the history of capital clemency in Oklahoma). 4 Okla. Cons. Art. VI, § 10. 5 Id. 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most