Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist once explained that executive clemency is intended to operate as the “fail safe” of the capital punishment system. It is the final opportunity, after all legal avenues have been exhausted, for an executive to decide whether to spare a prisoner from execution. Most grants of individual clemency come after consideration of one or more factors, including evidence of official misconduct or other unfair legal processes, ineffective assistance of counsel, innocence, or excessive sentencing.
Historically, clemency was the exclusive purview of the monarch, who alone had the power to save or condemn. This power was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution and in many state constitutions. In practice, however, clemency grants for death-sentenced prisoners are extremely rare, geographically concentrated, and politicized.
Fact: Clemency Grants are Extremely Rare
“In arguing for the death penalty, the prosecutor made explicit reference to [another murder] in arguing that Mr. Teleguz was so dangerous that he needed to be put to death. It was false information, plain and simple, and while I am sure that the evidence was admitted in a good-faith belief in its truthfulness at the time, we now know that to be incorrect. To allow a sentence to stand based on false information and speculation is a violation of the very principles of justice our system holds dear.”
While the public may perceive clemency as an eleventh-hour safety valve that will spare those unjustly sentenced to death, individual grants of clemency are extremely rare. Out of almost 10,000 individuals sentenced to death since 1972, only 86, or less than one percent have had their death sentences commuted. While the numbers are still small, over that same period, more than twice that number, or just over 200 individuals, have been found innocent — that is, exonerated and released from death row through the legal process.
Fact: Many States Have Never Granted Clemency to a Death-Sentenced Individual
Grants of clemency are also concentrated in a relatively small number of states. Several states have never pardoned a death-sentenced prisoner. Of the states that still retain the death penalty today, eleven have never issued an individual grant of clemency in the more than fifty years that comprise the modern death penalty. Three of these states (California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) have a moratorium in place on executions. The remaining states — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming — have also never issued an individual grant of clemency. Kansas, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Wyoming have never granted a single case of clemency nor exonerated anyone.
Fact: Clemency Decisions are Political
DPI has previously found clear evidence that electoral politics play a significant role in clemency decisions. From 1977 to 2021, 53.6% of clemency grants occurred when the executive was not a candidate for re-election – this percentage rises to 84.6% when the executive has the sole authority to grant clemency. This suggests executives almost exclusively use their power when they do not have to face voters again — only four individuals received grants of clemency when the governor was running for re-election. Some elected officials may worry about “voter backlash” but there is no empirical evidence supporting the theory that voters will change their votes based on an executive’s clemency decisions. Data from a Gallup Poll conducted in October 2023 also noted that 50% of respondents believe that the death penalty is applied unfairly, a record high, raising questions about how accurately executives are reading their constituents’ views about the death penalty and clemency.
One illustrative example is Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe’s denial of clemency to Lance Shockley, who was executed on October 14, 2025. An October 2025 survey found that Missouri voters, by a bipartisan two-thirds majority, supported a commutation of Mr. Shockley’s death sentence. Dr. Nicholas Scurich of the University of California, Irvine, found that 65% of the 440 registered Missouri voters surveyed supported clemency for Mr. Shockley when they learned the facts of his case, including majorities of every political party affiliation — only 19% of respondents outright opposed clemency. Voters who supported clemency “cited doubts about the strength of the evidence, concerns about the fairness of the judicial process, and Shockley’s positive conduct and transformation while incarcerated.”
