As is now well-known, Maurice Clemmons, the alleged killer of four police officers in Washington state, was once serving a 90+ year sentence in Arkansas, when Governor Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence. Today, Huckabee had this to say:
"I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision. But if the same file was presented to me today, I would have likely made the same decision."
The first part of the statement seems quite defensible to me. In 2000, he believed that Clemmons warranted a second chance, so Huckabee gave it. He's acknowledging that he's not omniscent.
However, I'm more skeptical of the last part of the statement. If the same file were presented today, why would he likely make the same decision? This suggests to me a serious problem in Huckabee's thinking, because the original decision to commute Clemmons' sentence, given his prior violent felony convictions, was something of a leap of faith.
Of course, Huckabee pardoned or commuted lots of sentences while he was Governor, and presumably few if any of the others have gone on a cop-killing spree. But the relevant pool of comparison is with repeat violent offenders. Youth and criminal history are in fact predictors of future criminal behavior, so Huckabee must think that he can spot those criminals worth a second chance. Yet, apparently not.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that he needed to be perfect in his assessment. But given the horrendous result here, I would think that a reflective person would think about whether his ability to make such assessments needs readjustment.
