In this paper, I will discuss the procedural, constitutional, and prudential issues that plague the current pardoning system employed in Minnesota. I ultimately advocate for the reform of this process. I begin by describing the three grants of clemency that are available in Minnesota: pardons, commutations of sentences, and pardons extraordinary. Next, I highlight the issues that burden the pardon system by looking at a particular applicant’s case: Amreya Shefa. In 2015, Shefa was convicted of first-degree manslaughter for killing her abusive husband, Habibi Tesema, who violently sexually assaulted her. Despite her compelling pleas for forgiveness in front of the Board of Pardons, Shefa was denied a pardon. Amreya Shefa’s case stands as an example of the onerous challenges that pardon applicants in Minnesota face.
Following this, I discuss the importance of pardons in our criminal justice system. Not only do pardons and pardons extraordinary remedy many of the legal penalties and disabilities people experience because of their conviction, they are also a symbol of the reform the applicant has made in their life. Pardons are recognition from the three highest officials in the state of Minnesota that an applicant is forgiven for their crime. Despite the crucial importance of this process, pardons are rarely granted and have been granted in significantly declining numbers over the last few decades.
Next, I discuss why pardons and pardons extraordinary have been granted in such low numbers over the last few years. First, I begin with the procedural issues that affect grants of clemency in Minnesota. This includes increased regulation of the procedural and substantive components for grants of clemency by the Minnesota Legislature. Next, I examine the state constitutional issues that burden the pardoning system in Minnesota. The Minnesota Board of Pardons consists of the governor, attorney general, and chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, and all pardons must be granted through a unanimous vote by the Board. I argue that the structure of the Board, coupled with the unanimous vote requirement, is inconsistent with the structure and text of the Minnesota Constitution.
Next, I discuss the prudential issues with the Board of Pardons. I argue that the current structure of the Board is unwise policy. I find it unwise to vest pardoning power exclusively in the hands of three of the top officials in Minnesota. I also find it unwise for the chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court to be involved in this process.
Finally, after discussing the problems that continue to burden the process of granting pardons in Minnesota, I describe a potential solution to these issues. I recommend that the Minnesota Legislature pass a law to create a Clemency Review Commission to change the current structure of this process. This solution was proposed in a bill in 2019. Unfortunately, this bill died when the legislative session ended. I argue that legislators should continue to push for a Clemency Review Commission to reform the pardoning process in Minnesota.
I ultimately conclude that the process for granting pardons in Minnesota is in dire need of reform and that the Minnesota Legislature needs to make an active effort in the upcoming legislative session to solve some of these problems. Pardons and pardons extraordinary play an incredibly important role in our criminal justice system, and especially in the lives of those that are granted clemency. It is in the best interest of the State of Minnesota that this process is fair and unburdened.