|
|
|
Clemency and Overcoming Barriers to Reentry |
The consequences of a criminal background are substantial for ex-offenders who receive no pardon…
Most offenders’ shackles do not disappear when they finish their sentences and walk out the prison gates. Rather, for the rest of their lives they endure the invisible punishments of their convictions: restrictions on employment, housing, civic involvement, gun ownership, and even coaching sports. Many of these restrictions have no relation to the ex-offenders’ crimes but are simply part of blanket barriers to opportunities. State laws vary, but in general the consequences of having a criminal background are substantial – unless an offender receives a pardon. The power to grant clemency and pardon has been vested in the state’s executive as a means of tempering justice with mercy, when deemed appropriate. Yet, most state governors exercise their powers of executive clemency and pardon with scant regularity. Likewise, recent presidents have responded to relatively few of the petitions for pardon delivered to them.
…making successful reentry difficult even for people with proven character.
Erecting barriers to offenders’ reintegration into society harms both offenders and their communities. When offenders cannot find sustaining employment and stable housing, their ability to become peaceful, contributing members of our communities is severely compromised. Avoiding the negative habits and patterns that contribute to criminal behavior is quite difficult when offenders cannot develop a meaningful foothold in society. In addition, giving offenders restrictions that bear no relation to the crime that they have committed violates justice and marginalizes these people without rational cause. Executives that fail to exercise their duty of pardon in appropriate cases deny deserving offenders the relief that can transform their lives. While a sentence may have made perfect sense at the time of conviction, changes in circumstances post-conviction can warrant review of the punishment and liberation from all of its post-prison effects.
Justice Fellowship calls for sensible and sensitive judgments.
Justice Fellowship believes that the challenges offenders face as they reenter society should be minimized - without compromising public safety. This can occur through eliminating all civil restrictions that do not relate to people’s original offenses and thus are unnecessary to protect our communities. For example, a person with a criminal record for money laundering should not be restricted from cutting grass at a school. Reforming federal and state statutes in this way can greatly enhance offenders’ ability to succeed in society. In addition, granting clemency and pardons should become a more common practice for government executives. Justice Fellowship believes the biblical narrative provides a compelling case for the value of forgiveness, and government executives should take seriously their responsibility to consider situations that warrant forgiveness. Removing inappropriate civil restrictions from ex-offenders can enhance the quality of community life and demonstrate true justice.
|
|
