Which U.S. governors in the last 25 years pardoned people convicted of murder and what were the stated reasons?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In the last 25 years governors across multiple states have used clemency to pardon or commute sentences for people convicted of murder, most commonly citing rehabilitation, disproportionate or excessive sentencing, recommendations from pardon boards, claims of innocence or humanitarian concerns as their stated reasons (NGA; ACLU) [1] [2]. Reporting identifies specific recent examples including Tennessee’s Bill Haslam, Illinois’ Bruce Rauner, North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, New Jersey’s Phil Murphy, Kansas’ Laura Kelly and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, each of whom granted commutations or pardons in murder cases and documented their rationales publicly [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Legal context: what “pardon” and “commutation” mean and who decides
States vary widely on clemency mechanics—some governors act alone while others must follow a board recommendation—and the two main acts are pardons (restoring civil rights or forgiving the legal consequences of conviction) and commutations (reducing or ending an active sentence), a distinction emphasized by the National Governors Association and the ACLU’s state-overview work [1] [2].
2. Documented governors and individual murder-related clemencies: the who and the stated why
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam commuted the sentence of Cyntoia Brown—convicted of first-degree murder when she was a teen—citing humanitarian and proportionality concerns, and he also ended lifetime parole supervision for other older murder convictions during his exit clemencies (Prison Legal News summary) [3]. Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, on his final full day in office, granted commutations that shortened or otherwise restructured two murder-related life sentences—Rauner’s office framed those actions as correcting excessive or cumulative sentences after review (Prison Legal News) [3]. North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper granted commutations and pardons that included people convicted of first- and second-degree murder, with official statements emphasizing post‑conviction rehabilitation, educational attainment, good disciplinary records, and parole eligibility as reasons (Governor’s press release; advocacy coverage) [4] [8]. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced commutations and pardons for dozens of people including individuals convicted of murder, describing some commutations as enabling supervised release after lengthy incarceration and noting reviews by his clemency office (NJ Governor’s Office) [5]. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly granted clemency that included commuting the sentence of a woman convicted of second-degree murder and cited that continued incarceration “no longer serves the interests of justice” after review and board recommendation processes (Kansas Reflector) [6]. Mississippi’s Haley Barbour drew controversy for a wave of outgoing pardons that included people convicted of murder; reporting notes those pardons were issued as he left office and provoked debate about process and proximity to the governor’s residence—media summaries describe the actions and associated criticisms (Crime Museum summary) [7].
3. Common rationales and procedural signals in public statements
Across these cases governors invoked themes that recur in clemency practice: documented rehabilitation (education, employment, disciplinary record), excessive or cumulative sentencing that produced disproportionate outcomes, board recommendations or investigative reviews, humanitarian grounds, and in a minority of cases claims of innocence or evidence problems—these rationales mirror the criteria and processes the NGA and state clemency offices describe [1] [9] [10].
4. Political context, controversy and alternative views
Clemency decisions—especially near term limits or as governors exit office—often spark criticism that the power is being used for political favor or to avoid accountability; advocacy groups and clemency proponents counter that executive relief corrects systemic unfairness and addresses excessive sentencing, a tension visible in coverage of outgoing-governor clemencies and in dispute over transparency when boards are bypassed or recommendations are overruled (Prison Legal News; Kansas Reflector; Crime Museum) [3] [6] [7].
5. Limits of this survey and conclusion
This account documents several governors with public, reported pardons or commutations involving murder convictions in recent decades but does not claim to be exhaustive; clemency frequency and disclosure practices vary by state and by administration, and comprehensive national lists require state-by-state record checks beyond the sources compiled here (NGA; CCRC) [1] [10]. Governors who have acted on murder cases typically justify those actions with rehabilitation evidence, proportionality concerns, board recommendations or humanitarian grounds—explanations that reflect both legal clemency criteria and the political calculations that accompany high-profile mercy decisions [9] [2].