The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-03
Keep the Board of Pardons.

Some Minnesota papers are urging
the abolition of the state board Of par
dons. They have no substitute to Of
fer, but would do ava with the par
doning power entirely and compel pris-
oners to serve the full sentence i'm
posed unless new evidence is brought
before the court on which the case may
be reopened. - "
The Journal does not believe
there is any crying demand for the
change, or thai there are any good
reasons to warrant it. It is true that
nine-tenths of the applications to- the
board OF pardons, do not deserve seri-
Gus consideration, and that q great
deal Of time is consumed by members
Of the board in reviewing such cases;
but that is what the state pays these
officials for-to work. It is also true
| that relatives often spend time and
money -uselessly in urging such cases.
Granting this, is it not better to keep
the star of hope alive in the hearts
Of the prisoner and his family than
to leave them in despair, chatting at
the relentless grip of the law?~ With
out a good prison record an applicant
/ before the board might as well save
his pains, and the hope of. pardon is
a strong incentive to good behavior
aud the formation Of character while
iu prison. ~
ii the board of pardons, were reek-
| less in opening the prison DOORS, there
might be some sound reason for the
agitation. This is not the case. In
the CID days, when the mere word of
the governor set prisoner free, there
We're many mistakes made, because
some one had touched the soft side of
the executive IS heart. To guard against
this, the board of pardons was created
The legislature Of 1895 submitted a
constitutional amendment creating the
board, and this carried at the general
election Of 1896. The legislature of
| 1897 adopted the present law. The
| board consists of the governor, attor.
ney general and the chief Justice Of
the supreme court. The unanimous
vote of this board is required before
any pardon or Communication of sen
tence can be granted. Applications
must be in writing, and notice of them
must be given to the judge of the
court where the applicant was tried
and the prosecuting attorney of the
district. While the law does not re-
quire it, it is the practice of the boarc
not to grant pardons except on the
recommendation of the trial Judge anc
the prosecutor. 49, -, III, =. "a.
} The action of the board has been con
sentative ever since it was created. TIL,
only mistake made, of any note, wa.
in the case of the Youngers, whose pa
role was practically ordered by Thu
legislature. AS rule, pardons are mo-
granted inmates of the penitentiar,
unless new evidence is produced t,
: show the innocence of the prisoner O.
to throw doubt upon his guilt. In ex
:, ceptional cases mercy is shown, alth,
guilt is admitted.
Why not show mercy9 Even-handet
justice is the ideal Of the law, but Jus
tice tempered with mercy is the tru
administration in a Christian nation,
There are cases where to leave
!, condemned man behind the prison wall
. is death to him and undeserved an
guish to loved ones. There are me,
, who have served long years in tn
grinding monotony Of the prison, ever
year meaning a lifetime Of anguish
!, whose punishment is worked out an
! whose reformation is complete. T
! give such one freedom would do n
injustice, would reunite broken fam
q lily and restore to society a usefu
s member. The prison is not a plac
i where society wreaks vengeance on til
! offender. The punishment is for hi
!, own good and the good Of society.
I The trial judge can measure the pu1
& ishment according to the offense, bu
! not always according to the offende
d This idea is behind the reformator
/. plan, which allows the prison author
i. ties to decide how long an impriso1
t ment is best FOR the person committee
g Sentences not on the reformatory pIa