The presidential pardon. Why is this still a thing? Why was it ever? It seems fundamentally unjust to me, especially in a country that purports to hold democracy and justice dear.
-
Features
Why do Presidential Pardons exist?
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
laughing dog
Contributor
Any country that holds democracy and justice dear would have an avenue for pardons because the criminal justice system is not infallible. Moreover, since the law cannot possibly be expected to deal with every possible set of circumstances in a criminal act, pardons can alleviate gross miscarriages of justice. Alexander Hamilton gave the justification for the Presidential pardon in the Federalist paper #74:
(source:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/presidential-pardons-explanation-executive-clemency-powers/660381002/)
prideandfall
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 2,118
- Location
- a drawer of inappropriate starches
- Basic Beliefs
- highly anti-religious agnostic
even the most cursory glances at history and reading between the lines shows how glaringly this country was founded on oligarchic cronyism, with the whole appeal to morals and standards and democracy being lip service that existed only to try and hide the truth of how nakedly opportunistic it was.
anyways, as with most things in the US where something utterly fucking ridiculous is going on, it's based on 200 years of slow exploitation of a badly worded article in the constitution, in this case article 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
untermensche
Contributor
The right of Kings.
The right of a single person to be more powerful than the law.
The sick love of the dictator.
It really is shitting on the legal system.
But that system is so covered in shit nobody notices.
The right of a single person to be more powerful than the law.
The sick love of the dictator.
It really is shitting on the legal system.
But that system is so covered in shit nobody notices.
The justice system fails sometimes, so one guy should have the power to excuse whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants? Sounds like a wide open door for corruption to me, and possibly the stupidest thing I have read all month. Is that seriously the reason people support presidential pardons existing? Or is there a better reason I've not yet heard?
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
This is a great example of a good idea, and really moral sounding principles put into words....that fail horribly in the real world. I know pardons happen fairly frequently, but all the high profile ones are more miscarriages of justice than anything else.
The good ones are (usually) the half dozen or so every president does just before he leaves office, which tells you exactly how it's actually regarded in general.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
It was to prevent abuses by the government.
Our whole system is designed to make it difficult to convict. All the abuses we see today are the result of two centuries of steady encroachment, chipping away at the 4th through 8th amendments.
In order for a law to pass in the first place you need it to pass congress. If they don't pass it that's it. If they do pass it, the president can veto it. It is possible to override a veto. Then someone has to be arrested, tried with the presumption of innocence requiring proof of guilt instead of proof of innocence. Then the judicial may declare a law unconstitutional and overturn it, at which point it takes a constitutional amendment to change the judicial ruling. Even if there is an amendment the person freed by overturning the law remains free. And in the case where an executive is cornered by the legislature overturning a veto and the judicial upholds the law, the president can still pardon.
It is because it is better to let ten guilty to free than to jail one innocent. Some people disagree with that sentiment.
Our whole system is designed to make it difficult to convict. All the abuses we see today are the result of two centuries of steady encroachment, chipping away at the 4th through 8th amendments.
In order for a law to pass in the first place you need it to pass congress. If they don't pass it that's it. If they do pass it, the president can veto it. It is possible to override a veto. Then someone has to be arrested, tried with the presumption of innocence requiring proof of guilt instead of proof of innocence. Then the judicial may declare a law unconstitutional and overturn it, at which point it takes a constitutional amendment to change the judicial ruling. Even if there is an amendment the person freed by overturning the law remains free. And in the case where an executive is cornered by the legislature overturning a veto and the judicial upholds the law, the president can still pardon.
It is because it is better to let ten guilty to free than to jail one innocent. Some people disagree with that sentiment.
untermensche
Contributor
The question is why does some schmuck who just happens to be the president have that power?
In theory it is wonderful to think the innocent will go free.
But in reality the pardon mainly allows the guilty and well connected to go free.
The judicial system has ways to allow the innocent to go free.
Giving schmucks greater power than the law is just asking for trouble.
In theory it is wonderful to think the innocent will go free.
But in reality the pardon mainly allows the guilty and well connected to go free.
The judicial system has ways to allow the innocent to go free.
Giving schmucks greater power than the law is just asking for trouble.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
As the chief law enforcement officer, of course that power resides with the President. Who should have that power?
Mind, since that power is constitutional, it is not "greater power than the law", it is the law.
Mind, since that power is constitutional, it is not "greater power than the law", it is the law.
untermensche
Contributor
Nobody.
Your love of the supreme dictator is amazing.
No human should have the power to set the guilty people they like free.
Just because Alexander Hamilton liked the idea of a King is no reason we should.
My understanding was that the president was pardoning people for crimes that they DID commit. There is a requirement that he/she has to be doing it by conducting a review and freeing a wrongly convicted person? Or he/she can just do it no questions asked and for whatever reason he/she wants? If the former, how is this just and how does the erring on the side of innocence logic apply?
Does a presidential pardon overturn a conviction or merely excuse one from the punishment for it?
Is it the President saying that the person didn't do the crime, or is it the President deciding who is above the law?
Does a presidential pardon overturn a conviction or merely excuse one from the punishment for it?
Is it the President saying that the person didn't do the crime, or is it the President deciding who is above the law?
Axulus
Veteran Member
The power should not have given to a single individual. Maybe a combination of the president, vice president, and the attorney general unanimously agreeing on a pardon would be more just and less prone to abuse, with the ability of the Senate to overturn any pardon.
laughing dog
Contributor
It is a good idea that depends on the President being a decent human being. Like any human institution, it is susceptible to failure and misuse. Whether it is stupid idea or not, depends on one's point of view. If you have a better idea, share it.
Eliminating the Presidential pardon would require a constitutional amendment. My guess is that most US citizens don't think this is such a pressing issue that requires attention and effort.
laughing dog
Contributor
As usual, your understanding about the US is substandard. A President can and has pardoned someone for any crimes they may have committed (President Ford pardoned former President Nixon for any crimes he may have committed while President).
The President is deciding that person will not be further punished for any wrongdoing. Since the Presidential pardon is part of the law, it cannot be above the law.
untermensche
Contributor
It is not part of the legal process.
It is beyond the legal process.
It is setting guilty people free on the whim of a dictatorial decision.
It is a form of corruption.
It is beyond the legal process.
It is setting guilty people free on the whim of a dictatorial decision.
It is a form of corruption.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
Pardons, reprieves, stays of execution are meant to be compassionate and in practice, they mostly are. Sure it could be improved by changing it, but to whom would you give the authority: judges, committees? If you can only give destructive criticism, don't bother posting. State how you would build it differently without nyahhhing.
untermensche
Contributor
Destroying bad ideas is a very productive activity.
If freeing guilty people is such a great idea we should have lotteries instead of corrupting both the executive and judiciary.
If freeing guilty people is such a great idea we should have lotteries instead of corrupting both the executive and judiciary.
laughing dog
Contributor
What if they weren't guilty but found guilty? What if in the interests of justice or human decency it would make sense to let them out of prison?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
People would fix the lotteries, the same way rich people fixed the draft. That's exactly the corruption you were warning about. It isn't so easy actually trying to suggest a structure, is it? Having people review old cases and emergency cases ought to be part of a pardoning or reprieve process, fairness and merit ought to be considered. What we consider fair today will be different in 20 years in a review. So for example if we legalized pot across the US in 20 years, we might review some of the minor cases of smoking and possession. Wouldn't that be fair? You're right that freeing people could get caught up in corruption and leaving a single person in charge of that power may not make sense, but what is an improved system? If it is merit based and based on fairness, why should it be a lottery?
untermensche
Contributor
That should be something built into the judicial system.
Not something that trickles from a politician.