The Controversy of Clemency and Innocence in America

Researchers

Sarah Cooper and Daniel Gough

Background

Senior lecturer in Law, Sarah Cooper and Law PhD student, Daniel Gough have published their research on ‘The Controversy of Clemency and Innocence in America’ in the California Western Law Review. This article investigates the effectiveness of the US clemency to give post-conviction relief to prisoners who have been falsely accused and given the death penalty.

The case of Herrera v. Collins in 1993 inspired this research as the United States Supreme Court (USSC) gave the clemency the power to solve wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. However since then, cases have been popping up that have revealed the inability of the clemency to set free innocent inmates with significant evidence.

Aims

By partaking in this research the academics aim to:

• Discover how the US clemency resolve wrongful conviction applications
• Suggest ways in which the US law system can be improved to help innocent people
• Investigate how applications for innocence are reviewed by the clemency
• Research how the US clemency is utilised by officials

Results

The researchers found that American executives are more likely to use the clemency for political advantages, rather than solving wrongful convictions. Due to this, the clemency still hasn’t fully served its role in ‘innocence’ and this reveals failures in clemency systems in America for innocent people. This is also because it is very difficult for prisoners to access the resources to prove their innocence, such as unfavourable applications and high eligibility processes.

The academics came to the conclusion that action must be taken to make the clemency a less hostile environment for innocents, by fairly reviewing clemency applications.