skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 65594 Find in a Library
Title: EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IN WISCONSIN - WHO RECEIVES CLEMENCY AND SEEKS ACCESS TO THE PROCESS
Author(s): H S LUFLER
Corporate Author: Ctr for Public Representation, Inc.
United States of America
Date Published: Unknown
Page Count: 66
Sponsoring Agency: Ctr for Public Representation, Inc
Madison, WI 53703
Ctr for Public Representation, Inc.

Wisconsin Council on Criminal Justice
Madison, WI 53702
Grant Number: 75-03-01-09
Sale Source: Ctr for Public Representation, Inc
520 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53703
United States of America
Type: Statistics
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS STUDY IDENTIFIES THOSE FACTORS WHICH ARE RELATED TO SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS FOR EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY IN WISCONSIN AND WHICH ENCOURAGE APPLICATIONS.
Abstract: 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)
Index Term(s): Clemency; Executive clemency; Pardon; Reprieve; Studies; Wisconsin
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=65594

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.