SELDOM, IF EVER, has there been as much attention given to the subject of pardons as we have observed this month.

First, following disclosure of the fact that former hockey coach Graham James had been pardoned for molesting two teens, the National Parole Board explained that it cannot refuse a pardon based on the nature of a crime.

Mr. James, now 58, pleaded guilty to sexual assault while he was coaching Western Hockey League teams from 1984 to 1995.

The National Parole Board granted him a pardon in 2007 after he completed a 31/2-year prison sentence. But the news only came to light in a report by The Canadian Press after a previously unknown accuser contacted Winnipeg police.

Since then, it has become evidence that any criminal, except those who are sentenced to a life or given an indeterminate sentence, can apply for a pardon after completing their full terms and a waiting period of three or five years. An applicant need only demonstrate that he or she has “been of good conduct” and has not been convicted of other offences, and it now appears that for years virtually all bids for pardons are granted, without the public routinely becoming aware of them.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ordered a review of the pardon system that hopefully will lead to some real reforms aimed at making them far more meaningful, within recipients being seen as having truly earned them.

As we see it, pardons in Canada ought to come close to fitting the definition offered by Wikipedia: “A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. It is granted by a head of state, such as a monarch or president, or by a competent church authority.”

A great example of an appropriate, if belated, granting of a pardon came last week when the government of Nova Scotia apologized and granted a special posthumous pardon to Viola Desmond, a black woman jailed in 1946 for sitting in a whites-only section of a segregated movie theatre. Premier Darrell Dexter said he was sorry to Ms. Desmond’s family, and all black Nova Scotians, for the racism she was subjected to in an incident he called unjust.

Of course, pardons can be granted in the absence of a criminal conviction, one classic example being President Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon. And sometimes they come in the form of legislation designed to correct historic wrongs.

Just last week we witnessed an example of this when U.S. President Barack Obama issued an order declaring that patients, not hospitals, should decide who can visit them.

The order was designed to prevent any recurrence of an incident in 2007, when Florida resident Janice Langbehn was prevented by a hospital from being with her dying same-sex partner. Hours after ordering the new regulations, Mr. Obama called Ms. Langbehn to say that he had been motivated, in part, by her plight. The President’s orders will also allow gays and lesbians to make medical decisions for their partners. As he explained, “Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindness and caring of a loved one at their sides.”

Today, there’s clearly no consensus in the Western world as to the appropriate process for issuing pardons.

At the one extreme, we see the National Parole Board issuing pardons to nearly everyone who seeks them and then doing nothing more than indicate whether or not one had been granted.

At the other extreme, pardons are rarely granted in the United Kingdom, where they continue to be seen as part of the Royal Prerogative, albeit on the advice of a minister. An exception came in 2006, when all British soldiers executed for cowardice during World War I were pardoned.

There, it is government policy to grant pardons only to those who are “morally” innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by misapplication of the law.

Therefore, the granting of pardons is very rare in the U.K. and the vast majority of recognized miscarriages of justice are decided upon by the courts.

In the circumstances, it will be interesting to see whether the Harper government will propose moving Canada closer to the British example.

Perhaps all that’s really needed is a good dose of transparency and accountability for the National Parole Board, as a supposedly independent federal agency.

Reforms we would welcome would include a requirement that anyone seeking a pardon obtain references as to their good character from at least three persons who have known them for a specified period of time.

Beyond that, the applications and the parole board’s reasons for or against granting a pardon should be posted on the Web.

In the case of sexual offences, the board should also require some evidence that the offences were out of character and that the offender has truly seen the error of his or her ways.