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

65 Fla. L. Rev. 1559 (2013)
Pardons and the Theory of the Second-Best

handle is hein.journals/uflr65 and id is 1609 raw text is: PARDONS AND THE THEORY OF THE SECOND-BEST Chad Flanders* Abstract This Article explains and defends a second-best theory of pardons. Pardons are second-best in two ways. First, pardons are second-best because they represent, in part, a response to a failure of justice: the person convicted was not actually guilty, or he or she was punished too harshly, or the punishment no longer fits the crime. In the familiar analogy, pardons act as a safety valve on a criminal justice system that doesn't work as it ideally should. Pardons, in the nonideal world we live in, are sometimes necessary. But pardons are also second-best because they can represent deviations from other values we hold dear in the criminal law: fairness, consistency, and nonarbitrariness. Pardons can all too often reflect patterns of racial bias, favoritism, and sheer randomness, both when they are given too generously and when they are not given generously enough. So we need to have a theory of how the pardoning power should be used, even when it is used to correct obvious injustices in the criminal justice system. This Article takes up the task of showing how pardons are justified, but more importantly, this Article also theorizes how pardons should be used. Specifically, it introduces two constraints on the pardon power, one that constrains pardons when we consider them individually and another that constrains pardons when we consider them as a whole. It is this latter ground that has especially been underdeveloped in the literature, and this Article provides grounds for evaluating pardons not merely taken one-by-one, but when more than one pardon is given out at a time, or over the course of an administration. * Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law; Visiting Fulbright Lecturer in Law, Nanjing University, China (2012-2013). I am grateful to Jeff Redding, Efthimi Parasidis, Monica Eppinger, and the members of the Washington University Junior Faculty Workshop, especially John Inazu, Zoe Robinson, Max Helveston, and Daniel Morales. They convinced me that my first go at this project was hopelessly wrong. I hope to have done better this time. William Baude and Christopher Bradley helped me to better frame my argument, and Zach Hoskins gave me incisive comments on a near-final draft. Justin Hansford provided helpful bibliographical guidance early on, and Dan Markel clarified a few points for me near the end. Lastly, correspondence with Ronen Avraham helped focus my thoughts on the issue of comparative desert. Thanks also to Yiqing Wang of Nanjing University and to Alex Muntges of Saint Louis University for excellent and timely research assistance. Research on this Article was generously supported by a summer research grant from Saint Louis University School of Law. All errors are my own. 1559

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