Talk:Commutation of sentence

Unsourced
I've removed this sentence: &ldquo;It was initially established in New York in 1862 but shortly proved to not be overly effective at reducing the prison overcrowding, which was the main intent behind the movement.&rdquo; until I can verify its accuracy. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 12:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct?
Obviously, this page needs expansion, but it also needs correction, possibly. The Free Dictionary says that commutation is an exercise of executive power, as by a governor or the president of the U.S. But this article makes it sound like an act of a parole board or warden. We probably also want to link to list of reversed death sentences, and maybe some other similar Wikipedia pages. I am not at all an expert on this topic, so I really don't feel qualified to make the changes. Any volunteers? -- Nowhither 21:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * AGREE - I will consider looking at it, but it is very sloppy. Alex 00:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another request: Please explain the relation between communtation, clemency, and reprieve. Firstrock 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This redirect is incorrect, in my opinion. A commutation of sentence page should be created. In the United States, commutation is the lessening of the severity of a sentence. That might reduce time served, even free the individual, downgrade the charges or change a death penalty sentence to life imprisonment. It typically occurs while the prisoner is incarcerated and doesn't clean the record of the prisoner if freed as a result. A felon still cannot vote. A pardon is usually accomplished after the person has completed a federal sentence. It doesn't clean the criminal record but shows the person has been pardoned, thus assisting him/her in getting jobs. It also allows the person to vote. Washington Post, 13 July 2015 Pnoble805 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Scooter Libby
I recently added the commuting of Scooter libby and it was subsequently removed with hours after being added. Quite frequently famous examples of the article are included on the page. I believe this should have been discussed before being removed. What does everyone think? I've included what was removed:

"On July 3, 2007 President Bush commuted the sentence of former Chief of Staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby. In the United States v. Libby, Libby was convicted on four of the five counts against him: two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators in regards to his role in the identity leak of CIA Agent Valerie Plame. While he was not required to serve jail time, the federal conviction stayed on his record and Libby was still required to pay $250,000 in fines, and serve 2 years of probation. When criticized about the commuting, President Bush responsed by saying ``My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby...The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.''" Alex 00:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would reword it into an example, and cut some of it out. This is an article on commutation of sentence, not what Bush did, or what happened in regrads to the Libby sentence. With that said a line or two giving an example of a recent commuted sentence is is fine, but the details aren't needed on here. A simple reference link (or linking to Bush, and Mr. Libby's wiki pages) is enough for any reader who will be interested in the details.

So, if I was to add this tidbit of news I would place it as follows. A recent example of a high profile commutation of sentence occurred on July 3, 2007, when President Bush commuted the sentence of former Chief of Staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  However, thats just my suggestion, and even that could be removed if another editor felt like it. Rawboard 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of edits sourced to Huffington Post and Jacob Appel
I removed edits sourced to a Jacob Appel column at Huffington Post. Both HP and Appel may be notable, but a blog post can't support the facts or the editorial importance of its author. The information needs to be first sourced per WP:RS before adding such primary sources. Flowanda | Talk 02:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly Disagree See Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. I dislike Appel as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that any one editor should delete his Wikipedia presence without good reason.  As long as he's being cited for the content of his columns as evidence of his views, rather than the factuality of his arguments, then he's a perfeclty legitimate source Crayvella (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Other countries
any examples? ...maybe even sources? Hoffmansk 16:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)