With republican operative Roger Stone receiving a commutation of his sentence from President Trump today, one might wonder how a commutation differs from a pardon, and why Trump just didn’t pardon Stone.

Both are actions of clemency available to the President from the Constitution.  In a normal presidency, clemency allows for the Chief Executive to correct a gross injustice committed by the Judiciary, or as societal norms make the sentence issued outdated or too harsh.  (We won’t discuss how this isn’t a normal presidency.)

The major difference between the two actions is the upholding of the conviction by the court.  When one is pardoned, that conviction is completely voided:  the record is expunged and it’s as if the alleged crime never occurred.  Additionally, all rights and privileges, such as the right to vote or own a gun, are restored.

A pardon is essentially a complete exoneration of the accused, who can go on leading the life they had prior to being charged.

In contrast, commutation does not invalidate or void the conviction.  The sentence is reduced or eliminated per the terms of the commutation outlined by the President.  The convict still has the limitations of any other convict:  voting limitations, gun ownership restrictions, and in certain cases, requirements for registration with local authorities.

For example, President Obama commuted the sentences of a number of people convicted of drug possession charges because the laws had become more lenient over time.  These commutations resulted in some people being freed from jail; others were still required to remain in jail, but their sentences were shortened.

There are two potential reasons why Trump commuted Stone’s sentence instead of pardoning him.  First, accepting a sentence is an implicit admission of guilt, even though you will not have a conviction on your record.  A pardon can be turned down if the convict does not want to admit he/she committed the crime, such as wanting to clear his/her name in an appeal.  See Burdick v. U.S. (1915) as presiding law.

A commutation cannot be refused.  There’s no reason for it:  the only benefit of a commutation is a shortened prison sentence.

The second:  a person who accepts a pardon can be compelled to testify in a future trial about his/her crime without being able to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  Given that a pardon essentially erases the very existence of a crime (as well as the potential for being charged with it in the future), the person must testify when required.  Brown v. Walker (1895) and also Nixon v. Sampson (D.D.C. 1975) are two cases regarding this.

Trump may have commuted Stone sentence, at Stone’s request, to ensure Stone does not have the immunity to testify that a pardon would grant.  It may also be that Stone does not want to admit his guilt.