President Joe Biden has controversially decided to commute the sentences of 37 individuals on federal death row to life in prison without parole. This announcement, which will surely raise eyebrows, made it clear that Biden waves away the death penalty. Alongside these commutations, Biden also yielded a series of pardons and commutations for individuals convicted of nonviolent crimes. While Biden tried to portray this decision as a merciful act, it’s important to remember that these offenders have committed truly heinous acts.
The aftermath of these actions and the strategy behind them remains a topic of hot debate. Questions linger regarding the logic of Biden’s pardons and commutations, with some suggesting it may give an impression of laxity towards serious crimes and criminals. Could these actions be used by Republicans to spotlight an image of Biden and his party as potential endorsers of heinous acts? It seems likely.
Despite varying reactions, it’s undeniable to everyone that the crimes committed by the individuals who had their sentences commuted were pure evil. Their actions have left countless families grappling with loss. However, Biden’s decision raises questions regarding the balance between justice and mercy, with many arguing this move has tipped too far in favor of the criminals.
Biden’s legacy has been marred by endless accusations of corruption and attempts to disguise his fluctuating health condition –facts the public only knows too well. Thus, his move to commute sentences and change the narrative around him raises eyebrows. It’s as if pausing the federal use of the death penalty is a strangely timed act of compassion from an otherwise tarnished presidency.
Biden’s contentious decision is essentially a dramatic response to former President Donald Trump’s actions which saw the Federal Bureau of Prisons resume executions after a 17-year pause. Advocacy groups and activists have exerted considerable pressure on the president to counteract this policy. Yet Biden’s reaction raises the question of whether it is genuine concern or merely political maneuvering.
Ruth Friedman, from the Capital Federal Habeas Project, asserts that various stakeholders from different perspectives urged Biden to make this significant move. Various well-known organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Equal Justice USA, the Innocence Project, the Catholic Mobilizing Network, and even Pope Francis himself, were among those strongly lobbying Biden toward these actions.
However, not every felon on federal death row was the recipient of Biden’s commutation. Among the individuals who didn’t benefit were infamous figures such as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber; Robert Bowers, who led the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, and Dylann Roof, the mastermind behind the terrifying Charleston church massacre. All of these men committed acts of profound and terrifying violence, and their crimes are emblematic of the sort of criminals many say still deserve the death penalty.
Interestingly, despite an imposed moratorium on federal executions by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2021, these death sentences continue to be defended in court by representatives from the Department of Justice. This shows the convoluted approach to justice within this administration, as Biden’s commutations solidified the continued existence of death sentences.
Even though Biden’s move will inevitably stall the federal death penalty for some time, critics argue it does not address the true need for penal reform. Robert Dunham, from the Death Penalty Policy Project, comments that should legislation not offer an end to the death penalty, this may temporarily suffice. This underlines the issue of whether leniency measures are genuinely driven by a desire to implement meaningful reform or merely political posturing.
In the light of these decisions, some showed gratitude to Biden, not for any moral triumph but rather for the temporary safety this might ensure for those facing the death penalty. The question, however, remains whether legal tactics outweigh any potential benefits to justice and social stability.
Reacting to this presumably benevolent move, there were few supporters such as Donnie Oliviero, a police officer who found comfort in the knowledge that his partner’s killer wouldn’t be put to death. However, we must question the value of such ‘mercy’ in the grand scheme of public sentiments and the struggle for justice.
Gary Mohr, the former director of the Ohio Department of Corrections, expressed his gratitude to Biden for his unprecedented decision. He believes that no federal correctional professionals should face the ‘harm’ of participating in executions. But where is the consideration for the emotional damage done to the families of victims who have witnessed their loved one’s killers evade the ultimate justice?
Ultimately, Biden’s move to commute these sentences has brought more confusion than peace, more contention than consensus. It seems a hasty move to try and rebrand his tarnished image. As much as the news, cloaked in mercy, might seem to bring ‘peace’ as some would argue, it surely does muddy the waters of justice and law, leaving more room for controversies than applause.