Clemency is often a death-sentenced inmate’s last hope for relief. Without it, the inmate must either hope for appellate success or, if they have exhausted their appeals, hope that the justice system will eventually and unexpectedly intervene. However, even when clemency is granted, the relief that it provides may come with strings attached.

In some commutations of death sentences to life without parole, these strings have included a requirement that the recipient waive future appeals and legal challenges. In such situations, while the commutation saves the recipient’s life, the appellate waiver condition eliminates any hope of further relief. In doing so, the conditions present an incomplete solution that overlooks the doubts and uncertainties that provided the basis for the commutation, prevents these doubts from being further examined, and takes advantage of the recipients’ dire situation and lack of leverage. As a result, such conditions cannot be voluntarily accepted, and they do not address the root of the original conviction, further the public policy justifications for appellate waivers, or enhance the functioning of the capital punishment system overall.

For these reasons, this Note argues that such appellate waiver conditions in capital commutations are invalid. Part I provides an overview of executive clemency’s role and breadth and examines two competing approaches to clemency: individual mercy and public welfare. Part II describes the scope of the conditional commutation power and sets forth the considerations–-acceptance, nexus to public policy, and constitutionality–-for evaluating the attached conditions. Part III asserts that appellate waiver conditions in capital commutations are unjust and improper due to the inherent coercion of imminent execution and their contravention of public policy.

Continue reading Unjust Bargains and Incomplete Solutions: Appellate Waiver Conditions in Capital Commutations