- Quickdraw McLaw
- 23 Comments
- 162 Views
A reader wants your input:
Question 3, if passed, would make changes to the Nevada Board of Pardons, which has the power to reduce sentences and grant pardons for convicted criminals.
It’s made up of nine members — the governor, attorney general and the seven justices of the Nevada Supreme Court.
Question 3 would require the board to meet quarterly, allow for any board member to bring items forward for consideration and take away the governor’s veto power.
I would love to know the legal communities thoughts on this question!
I am generally against any changes to the constitution that could be accomplished through legislation
Defund the bourgeoisie Parole Board – Lift the yoke off of the necks of these poor unfortunate souls, set all of the prisoners free.
#defundcampaignmanagers I am tired of getting these damn campaign flyers.
Received 4 or 5 union flyers with Bonnie Bulla right at the thd top on all of them. A little too fishy too me. I will vote for her opponent.
To
8:03 – I'm generally in agreement, but this takes more than a legislative fix as the scheme is established by the state constitution. Here's the existing language in Article 5:
Sec. 14. Remission of fines and forfeitures; commutations and pardons; suspension of sentence; probation. [Effective through November 23, 2020, and after that date unless the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 (2017) are approved and ratified by the voters at the 2020 General Election.]
1. The governor, justices of the supreme court, and attorney general, or a major part of them, of whom the governor shall be one, may, upon such conditions and with such limitations and restrictions as they may think proper, remit fines and forfeitures, commute punishments, except as provided in subsection 2, and grant pardons, after convictions, in all cases, except treason and impeachments, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons.
2. Except as may be provided by law, a sentence of death or a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole may not be commuted to a sentence which would allow parole.
3. The Legislature is authorized to pass laws conferring upon the district courts authority to suspend the execution of sentences, fix the conditions for, and to grant probation, and within the minimum and maximum periods authorized by law, fix the sentence to be served by the person convicted of crime in said courts.
Here's the proposed change:
Sec. 14. State Board of Pardons Commissioners; remission of fines and forfeitures; commutations and pardons; suspension of sentence; probation. [Effective November 24, 2020, if the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 (2017) are approved and ratified by the voters at the 2020 General Election.]
1. The governor, justices of the supreme court, and attorney general shall constitute the State Board of Pardons Commissioners.
2. The State Board of Pardons Commissioners may, upon such conditions and with such limitations and restrictions as they may think proper, remit fines and forfeitures, commute punishments, except as provided in subsection 3, and grant pardons, after convictions, in all cases, except treason and impeachments, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons.
3. Except as may be provided by law, a sentence of death or a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole may not be commuted to a sentence which would allow parole.
4. The State Board of Pardons Commissioners shall meet at least quarterly.
5. Any member of the State Board of Pardons Commissioners may submit matters for consideration by the State Board of Pardons Commissioners.
6. A majority of the members of the State Board of Pardons Commissioners is sufficient for any action taken by the State Board of Pardons Commissioners.
7. The Legislature is authorized to pass laws conferring upon the district courts authority to suspend the execution of sentences, fix the conditions for, and to grant probation, and within the minimum and maximum periods authorized by law, fix the sentence to be served by the person convicted of crime in said courts.
All this does is give our governor deniability in the event of a pardon issued that is publicly unpopular. Horseshit. NO CHANGE!
The governor already has deniability, or at least safety in numbers. Everyone on the board is politically accountable, all of them being subject to election.
What the legislature needs to do is fund the pardons board staff adequately so it does more than community cases. It's unbelievable in today's environment that they haven't done significant inmate cases and instead waste time on community cases that could and should be handled on consent agendas. I am a firm no on this initiative because it delays the very real dialog that needs to occur here with respect to inmate cases and committing the resources needed to work them up.
11:45, can you explain that more? What are community cases?
Community cases come from people who committed a crime for which they paid the fine and served their sentence or completed probation–they are in the community and typically seek a pardon for their past crime with gun rights restored so they can hunt and/or have a firearm. Inmate cases are people who are incarcerated and are seeking a pardon or commutation of sentence so they may be released. These include people who were convicted and sentenced years ago for a crime that today would not result in such a sentence, as an example. Or, who have completely turned their life around while in prison and have family who need them, etc. Just examples, but what's happened here is the pardons board doesn't have enough people to work up these cases due to budget constraints.
As an attorney not handling any Pardons, I am completely uninterested in this arcane ballot question. I imagine that the non-legal public knows and cares even less! But I will follow this thread to see if there are any interesting points to be made that might excite my interest.
I think it's a good idea. Look at the Steese case: everyone on the board voted to pardon him except Laxalt. Lil trainwreck didn't have a real reason, especially in light of the evidence supporting the pardon, but he still refused. Laxalt is determined to run for higher office here. Do we really want someone like that to have veto power over a person's innocence and freedom in the face of clear injustice? If anything the orange blob has taught us that voters are not to be trusted to vote in their own best interest. We needs laws on the books to protect us against executive overreach and this is a good start.
Said every fascist dictator ever.
Currently, you must get the governor's vote and a majority of the Board (Gov, AG, full Supreme Court) to secure a pardon. Question 3 will remove the veto by the governor and will require 4 meetings a year. Additionally, any member of the Board can put a pardon request on the agenda. I do this work and I recommend "yes" on Question 3.
1:38: Laxalt couldn't veto Steese's pardon.
1:38 here – I know. But he did run for governor. My point was that someone like him could withhold a pardon for no reason (or strictly political reasons) and it's better not to have that kind of power in one person. Anyways, my comment didn't make that clear. Sorry.
#defundhunterbiden
#2A
Preach. Cannot believe the libs who run twitter are censoring the Hunter Biden story to help out creepy Joe
The "story" is less-than-credible, but will probably have a conservative media half-life akin to BENGHAZI!!!! or Hillary's emails, especially if Biden wins. That said, the decision by Twitter is a classic example of the Streisand Effect and will probably be more helpful to Trump than if Twitter had not intervened.
Michael Ian Black sums it up well:
Undecided voter here: on one hand, Hunter Biden didn't commit any crimes, but on the other hand Trump's children stole money from their own cancer charity and are prohibited from ever running a charity again so I don't know who to vote for! UGH!
Question 3 is a good idea because it provides an open and clearly defined way to get cases on the agenda and it provides for regular meetings. As things stand now, most people who apply for pardons never get a hearing. There aren't regular meetings of the board, so who knows when something will happen. The way the system works now, it just works for a small group of people who are "in the know" and everyone else is left out. Also, the change regarding the vote necessary for a pardon is a good idea.
To 8:06, why is taking away the veto power a good idea? I like the idea of quarterly meetings. But I'm torn on disregarding the veto. Can you expand on your reasoning?
This is in response to the 9:56 pm post. Nevada has NEVER been liberal in granting pardons. Right now, you can have an outstanding incredible case for a pardon, and the petitioner will rarely get a hearing, and even if he or she gets a hearing, the granting of the pardon is unlikely. Many petitioners are in their 60s or 70s and have been model prisoners for decades. The veto is an unnecessary additional hurdle. IF a majority of the pardons board thinks someone deserves a pardon, let the individual get a pardon. Remember, we have a real problem in Nevada with too many geriatric prisoners, whose medical care is extremely expensive. And we have so many "life without parole" sentences that some of these people have no way to get out except through the pardon process, which, right now, is not really a process for the overwhelming majority of people. People in Nevada have little to no clue about how long some of our sentences are. I saw a guy in court a while ago who sold two houses that did not belong to him. He will be eligible for parole in 27 years. People who steal millions of dollars in most jurisdictions generally serve 5-10 years. This state wastes so much money warehousing these people for long periods of time. This pardon board reform is a small step, and won't affect many people, but it's a good thing.