Relating To Executive Pardons.
The enactment of SB2091 modifies the existing laws governing pardons, ensuring that there is a clear process that incorporates inputs from multiple stakeholders, including the governor, the Hawaii paroling authority, and the prosecuting attorney. It introduces timelines and procedures for reviewing applications, such as the requirement that the paroling authority must notify the prosecuting attorney within forty-five days of receiving a new application. Additionally, should a pardon application be denied, the paroling authority cannot accept any new applications from the same individual for two years unless new significant information is presented.
SB2091 is a legislative bill aimed at amending the executive pardon process in Hawaii. It establishes a more structured application process for individuals seeking pardons, requiring that all applications be formally addressed to the governor and filed with the Hawaii paroling authority. The bill outlines specific information that must be included in an application, such as the applicant's details, the nature of the conviction, and reasons for seeking a pardon. It also allows the governor to refer applications to relevant authorities, including the attorney general, for further investigation and recommendations on granting or denying the pardon.
The sentiment around SB2091 appears to be informative and cooperative. Proponents believe that this bill brings necessary transparency and structure to the pardon process, thereby improving fairness in how applications are handled. There is an underlying theme of ensuring that victims and their families are considered within the process, which aligns with broader principles of justice and accountability. However, some may express concerns about the bureaucracy that such a process might introduce and whether it could inadvertently extend the duration for individuals seeking clemency.
A notable point of contention is the provision that prevents repeat applications for pardons within a two-year timeframe following a denial. Critics may argue that this could unduly limit individuals' chances of obtaining pardons, particularly if circumstances change or new evidence emerges shortly after an application has been denied. The interplay between the rights of the pardonee and the interests of victims is also a critical area of discussion, as the bill emphasizes victim notification during the application process, potentially weighing heavily on decisions made by the governor or paroling authority.