On a Real Conflict of Interest

The recent ruling by the Ramsey County district judge has brought to light a critical issue in the granting of executive clemency in Minnesota. The Pardon Board, consisting of the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, has the power to grant clemency to deserving cases. However, the current rule allows any one member of the Board to veto the request for clemency, leading to a possible lack of fairness in the decision-making process.

The recent ruling states that the Board must be unanimous in approving the petition for clemency, whether it be for pardon or commutation. This ruling was made after considering the inherent recognition of over-harshness in the granting of executive clemency. Since the harshness must lay at the feet of the courts, it is contradictory to have the head of the courts involved in the process.

However, the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, who is known for being an exceedingly harsh justice, has taken the position that the Board should be inactive until her Court has had an opportunity to determine her power in this matter. This raises concerns about the fairness of the decision-making process and whether the head of the courts should be involved in the ultimate ruling on her own power.

It is important to consider that executive clemency is a critical control on the judiciary side and can generally be used to bring about an objectively fair cure for over-punishment or wrongful punishment. The input of the head of the judiciary has always seemed to be self-defeating, given the recognition of over-harshness in the granting of executive clemency.

In conclusion, the recent ruling by the Ramsey County district judge has highlighted the need for a fair and just process in the granting of executive clemency. It is imperative to consider the inherent recognition of over-harshness and the possible lack of fairness in the decision-making process. The involvement of the head of the courts in the ultimate ruling on her own power raises concerns about the fairness of the process, and it is essential to ensure that the decision-making process is objective and just for all.