When Pennsylvania voters go to the polls on November third to choose their next governor, the Board of Pardons will likely be low on their list of concerns to address. However, for thousands of people serving criminal sentences in Pennsylvania, the outcome of the upcoming election could have a very real impact on their opportunity for a second chance.
The Board of Pardons, a group created by the Pennsylvania Constitution, reviews applications for clemency and determines whether or not to recommend a pardon or sentence commutation. Ultimately, though, the Governor makes the final decision. As November looms, it is important to remember the authority that Pennsylvania’s elected governor will have over giving second chances to deserving inmates.
Historically, Pennsylvania has had executive pardoning power since The Charter of Pennsylvania of 1681 gave William Penn the ability to pardon crimes, except treason and murder. The state constitutions of 1790 and 1838 handed the power to issue pardons over to the governor. In order to create a system of checks and balances to address any potential abuse of that power, the Board of Pardons was established in 1872.
Today, the Board serves the same purpose it was created to serve over a century ago. Five members make up the modern Board of Pardons: the lieutenant governor, the attorney general and three members appointed by the governor with the consent of the Senate. The three appointed members cannot be random. They are required to consist of a crime victim, a corrections expert and a medical doctor, psychiatrist or psychologist. The current Pennsylvania Board of Pardons members are Lieutenant Governor Austin Davis, Attorney General David Sunday, victim representative Marsha H. Grayson, corrections expert Harris Gubernick and psychiatrist Dr. John S. O'Brien II.
Governor Josh Shapiro’s appointment of O'Brien to the Board in 2026 has brought renewed attention to the Board by clemency advocates and raised concerns around a potential shift in the Board’s approach. O’Brien has previously argued that juveniles cannot not be rehabilitated and should be tried as adults. This particular viewpoint about an individual's inability to change has signaled apprehension about whether or not he will take a particularly prosecutorial approach when considering clemency applications.
This is especially important because of the particular rule that a unanimous vote by the Board of Pardons is required for a person serving a life sentence to receive a recommendation for commutation. The unanimous requirement has not always been in effect. The rule most recently dates to a 1997 constitutional change. Before this, a majority vote was sufficient to recommend a life sentence commutation. The change followed during an era when ‘hard on crime’ was a particularly popular ideal. In a 1994 incident in which a person whose sentence had been commuted went on to commit heinous crimes after being released, the change claimed to be a way to uphold a higher standard of public safety.
While making the vote unanimous may have been appealing at the time, the concern today is that the change may have overcompensated and backfired. Now, if four Board members believe a life sentence commutation is deserved and the opportunity to be released should be given, one member can prevent that person’s case from ever reaching the Governor for consideration.
Seeing that this may result in a restrictive system that makes second chances hard to come by, there have been attempts to change it. House Bill 1410, introduced in 2023, proposed an amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution that would make it so a vote of three or more of the five Board members, a majority rather than unanimity, could allow the Board to recommend life sentence commutation. The bill did not ultimately pass and today the unanimous requirement still remains.
The statistics of granted pardons and commutations make the broader concern of restrictiveness even more relevant. In 2025, the Board of Pardons received 2,216 applications for clemency. Of these applications, only 309 resulted in clemency being granted. That is only about 13.9% of the applications received in 2025. These numbers demonstrate the reality of how many people are seeking a second chance versus how many receive one.
A particular concern for Pennsylvania? The aging prison population. Approximately 27% of Pennsylvania's incarcerated population is considered geriatric. For many older inmates serving life sentences, clemency through the Board of Pardons is their primary avenue for release. As people age in prison, their incarceration becomes increasingly expensive for taxpayers, as older inmates are more likely to need specialized medical services associated with aging. Further restricting one of the only pathways for their release just means expanding the geriatric population behind bars and the greater community’s monetary investment in their imprisonment.
By no means does the idea of stepping away from a restrictive Board of Pardons mean every application should be granted. Victims' rights and public safety remain central considerations even when the Board recognizes that people change, circumstances change and punishment does not necessarily need to last forever.
The Board of Pardons was created as a check on the Governor's power. While that purpose remains important, it is still integral that a system designed to ensure that clemency decisions are carefully considered should not become a system in which meaningful second chances are nearly impossible to obtain. That is why the upcoming gubernatorial election matters; the Governor will appoint three of the five members of the Board as well as decide whether to grant clemency after the Board makes its recommendation. This can be the difference between a second chance and perpetual imprisonment despite exemplary rehabilitation efforts, between coming home and serving decades more time. Pennsylvania voters should know that when they choose their next governor, this is what is at stake.
—Rebecca Langman, project manager for the firm, contributed to the preparation of this article.
Laurie Jubelirer is the owner of Jubelirer Law, and her law practice in Montgomery County is devoted to helping individuals facing criminal charges and violations of their civil rights. She is active in promoting criminal justice reform via writing and speaking, including appearances on podcasts and through her own podcast, “Voices of the System,” which recently launched in January 2026. She opened her law practice 13 years ago in 2013. Prior to opening the firm, she worked as a prosecutor in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and as a Deputy Attorney General in the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General. She is a staunch advocate for numerous incarcerated clients and an active member of Women Owned Law; the Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Montgomery Bar Associations; and the Louis D. Brandeis Law Society.
