 |
| Michael Crowley |
These articles generally focus on decisions the Parole Board of Canada has made, or occasionally news about an individual who has reoffended after being released. Some of the names involved are individuals I know from my years as a member of the board, or because of the high-profile nature of the case.
I suppose that after spending more than 21 years as a member, and more than 40 years working within the criminal justice system, I have retained a sincere interest in the “business” of criminology.
A couple of weeks ago, an article caught my eye because it involved a clemency case from Oklahoma.
The headline indicated that the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board had voted 3-2 to recommend to the governor that the death sentence of an individual be terminated and that he instead be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
As I continued reading, I learned that the individual had been convicted, along with his brother and two others, of murdering a young man in the course of a robbery.
All four were equally charged under an Oklahoma “felony murder” statute, which meant that anyone involved in committing a murder while in the commission of another violent offence was equally responsible, even though there was no evidence that they actually used the weapon that led to the death of the victim.
In this case, there were four individuals who had attempted to rob two young men. The victims were strangers whom they had met at a pool hall and convinced to return to their motel in the company of two young females who were part of the robbery attempt. The men had a knife and a handgun; the women did not have any weapons. A melee ensued and while one individual escaped, the other died from a stab wound.
Tremane Wood possessed the knife, but his brother confessed that he alone had stabbed the victim. Nonetheless, under the felony murder statute, Wood was convicted and sentenced to death. His brother committed suicide in prison. One of the women was convicted of conspiracy to commit a felony and sentenced to 45 years in prison. The other woman was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced to life without parole, as well as 101 years for the murder.
Wood apparently had numerous grounds for appeal, and since his conviction in 2004 has appealed his conviction and appeared before the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board requesting clemency.
The board in Oklahoma is only able to make a clemency recommendation to the governor — something they apparently rarely do. But they did in this case after holding a hearing and receiving letters of support for Wood, including one from the mother of the man who was killed.
What struck me was that I was eminently relieved that, as a board member in Canada, I never had the enormous responsibility of hearing cases from individuals who had been sentenced to death, and deciding whether a recommendation should be made to allow them to instead serve their life sentence in prison with no possibility of parole.
I firmly believe in parole because I believe that most people, in spite of the crimes they committed, are able to change and ultimately to reintegrate, safely, in society.
But at the same time, I know there are individuals who will likely never be able to be safely reintegrated. In those instances, when I was involved in conducting a parole hearing, I knew that a negative decision — one in which we reiterated the high risk posed by the individual, the lack of any progress while incarcerated and the lack of a reasonable plan for release — would likely lead to that person being incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Making such a decision was not an easy one, but the protection of society was paramount in any decision. Knowing how I felt in such cases, I have a hard time fathoming how the members in Oklahoma must feel, especially if they do not recommend clemency, knowing that will lead to the inmate’s execution.
While there are 48 states that have felony conviction laws or statutes, Canada does not, after the Supreme Court decisions in R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636 and R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633.
However, the Parole Board of Canada does play a part in making a recommendation to the Governor General to grant a royal prerogative of mercy. This is a historic discretionary power based on the right of a monarch to grant mercy. The board is the body that considers such a request and makes a recommendation based on a number of factors. A free pardon is an absolute, unconditional pardon.
A free pardon may be considered as a formal recognition that a person was erroneously convicted of an offence. It may also be granted in exceptional cases where considerations of justice, humanity and compassion warrant the granting of such a pardon.
I am personally unaware of such a pardon being granted, though I am aware of an effort to obtain a free pardon for Robert Latimer and am prepared to support these efforts, if asked.
Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring, Crowley was a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him at CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.