Cited by 46Torture, Ethics, and LawCriminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Law and Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mercy by the Numbers: An Empirical Analysis of Clemency and Its Structure

Open access
Heise, Michael·2003·Virginia Law Review

Abstract

Clemency is an extrajudicial measure intended both to enhance fairness in the administration of justice, and allow for the correction of mistakes. Perhaps nowhere are these goals more important than in the death penalty context. The recent increased use of the death penalty and concurrent decline in the number of defendants removed from death row through clemency call for a better and deeper understanding of clemency authority and its application. Questions about whether clemency decisions are consistently and fairly distributed are particularly apt. This study uses 27 years of death penalty and clemency data to explore the influence of defendant characteristics, political factors, and clemency's structure on clemency decisions. The results suggest that although a defendant's race and ethnicity did not influence clemency, gender did play a role, as women were far more likely than their male counterparts to receive clemency. Analyses of political and structural factors point in different directions. Political factors such as the timing of gubernatorial and presidential elections and a governor's lame-duck status did not systematically influence clemency. However, how states structure clemency authority did make a difference. Clemency grants were more likely in states that vest authority in administrative boards than in states that vest authority in the governor. Regionality and time were also important as clemency grants were less likely in southern states and declined after 1984. Overall, these mixed results contribute to a critique that clemency decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent. Thus, important questions regarding fairness that plague earlier aspects of the death penalty process persist to its final stage.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3202434

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Coleen E. Klasmeier, Towards a New Understanding of Capital Clemency and Procedural Due Process, 75 B.U. L. Rev. 1507, 1513-14 (1995). For a discussion of how the 1990 gubernatorial contests in Texas, California, and Florida offer glimpses into the new politics of death, see, for example, Richard Lacayo, The Politics of Life and Death, Time, Apr. 2, 1990, at 18; see also Lucy Howard & Ned Zeman, 1-800-Death, Newsweek, July 8, 1991, at 6 (reporting that a Nebraska senator established toll-free number so death penalty boosters could register support for the execution of Harold Otey). 237 Of the 776 defendants in the dataset, 178 (22.9%) received clemency. 238 See Am. Civil Liberties Union, Geography Determines Death Sentences, at http://www.aclu.org/news/newsprint.cfm?ID=98008&c=62 (Mar. 8, 2002) (on file with the Virginia Law Review Association) (noting that of the more than 700 executions during the last twenty-five years, Texas and Virginia have "accounted for almost one-half"). But see

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Heise, M.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Heise, Michael
Venue
Virginia Law Review
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
2003-04
Volume
89
Issue
2
Pages
239
ISSN
0042-6601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137467486
Cited by
46
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Virginia Law Review (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholarship @ Cornell Law (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Torture, Ethics, and Law
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
Keywords
clemency, death penalty, death row, gender differences, racial disparities, gubernatorial elections, political factors, administrative board, Southern United States, fairness in criminal justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review