THE THREE TYPES OF EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY SPECIFIED IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION ARE PARDONS, COMMUTATIONS, AND REPRIEVES. APPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY THAT WERE FILED DURING 1967, 1969, 1972, AND 1974 WERE EXAMINED BY RESEARCHERS. INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FILES INVOLVED ACTION REQUESTED BY APPLICANTS; NATURE OF THE OFFENSE; APPLICANTS AGE, SEX, AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND JUDGE; MONTH PARDON WAS GRANTED; AND APPLICANT'S PRINCIPAL REASONS FOR APPLYING. ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS SHOWED THAT THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED TO GOVERN THE AWARDING OF THE CLEMENCY WERE BEING FOLLOWED. ONCE THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED, IT WAS JUDGED BY SET STANDARDS; THE USE OF AN ATTORNEY DID NOT INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS. THE SYSTEM DID NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY GROUP OR TYPE OF APPLICANT. SUCCESSFUL PARDON APPLICANTS WERE GENERALLY FOUND TO BE FULLY EMPLOYED, RELEASED FROM SUPERVISION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND SEEKING TO ERASE CIVIL DISABILITIES OR THE EFFECT OF THEIR CONVICTIONS. SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS FOR COMMUTATION HAD SERVED SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THEIR SENTENCES AND WERE SEEKING TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE. MINORITY GROUP MEMBERS DID TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR COMMUTATIONS BUT DID NOT DO SO FOR PARDONS. BARRIERS TO THE SYSTEM WERE DISCUSSED, AND THE USE OF INTERMEDIARIES AS AGENTS TO ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS WAS NOTED. BECAUSE WHITES ARE MORE LIKELY TO COME IN CONTACT WITH INTERMEDIARIES, ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM APPEARS TO BE UNFAIRLY DISTRIBUTED. SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS AND PARALEGALS SHOULD PROVIDE NEEDED INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE REGARDING APPLICATIONS. FOOTNOTES, TABLES, AND A BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED. AN APPENDIX PRESENTS PARDON PROCEDURES IN OTHER STATES. (LWM)