Why do Presidential Pardons exist?

[untermensche]

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.

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 cairness, why should it be a lottery?

I wasn't serious.

I'm not promoting a lottery to free convicted criminals.

You have to make your judicial system better to get better justice.

That is the only way.

This is window dressing and just a form of political corruption available to both parties.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

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 cairness, why should it be a lottery?

I wasn't serious.

I'm not promoting a lottery to free convicted criminals.

You have to make your judicial system better to get better justice.

That is the only way.

This is window dressing and just a form of political corruption available to both parties.

I don't think it is window dressing as some good has come from it. I wouldn't mind moving it to a committee with an application process under judicial branch, keeping in mind that a single contact for emergency issues of other powers like a stay ought to also be there. I don't agree though about corruption. Corruption is part of human nature. Committee members are low level politicians, judges too, middle management. Anyone with power is corrupted.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

It doesn't look remotely difficult to improve on. It looks like an open door to corruption with no questions asked and the ability for one person to elevate whoever they want above the law for whatever reason they want. This from a country that fought a war to free themselves from having a King who can do such things on a whim. So they want their president to have the same ability to do it on a whim?

1. Don't give such a power to one person, who may have no legal training. Yes, a panel of judges would be better, and they should have to justify their reasoning and keep it within transparent and reasonable restrictions.

2. Don't give the power to this person/people to pardon whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

3. A power to order further inquiries and find actual evidence or argument that the person was innocent of the crime they were accused of is fine.

Why is that hard?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As the chief law enforcement officer, of course that power resides with the President. Who should have that power?

Nobody.

So you want greater power for wrongful convictions. How anarchistic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

It doesn't look remotely difficult to improve on. It looks like an open door to corruption with no questions asked and the ability for one person to elevate whoever they want above the law for whatever reason they want. This from a country that fought a war to free themselves from having a King who can do such things on a whim. So they want their president to have the same ability to do it on a whim?

1. Don't give such a power to one person, who may have no legal training. Yes, a panel of judges would be better, and they should have to justify their reasoning and keep it within transparent and reasonable restrictions.

2. Don't give the power to this person/people to pardon whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

3. A power to order further inquiries and find actual evidence or argument that the person was innocent of the crime they were accused of is fine.

Why is that hard?

I think if you read all of my posts in this thread you will find I am not in major disagreement with those directions. Where I disagree in minor ways is and has been:
1. There must also be a streamlined or emergency method or single person for a fast case of operation;
2. The hyperbole is misplaced as in practice this power is hardly used for corrupt purposes. Also human nature is corrupt, to include committees, corporations, congress, any body with power. It is naive to think a committee removes corruption or even lessens it.

If you had not skipped over my own constructions in posts you would see that my own suggestions of fairness, merit, application process, board or committee within the judicial branch are compatible with the 3 items you are asking "why are they so hard?" You will need a constitutional amendment as well as state level changes since governors also have these powers.

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

This is not at all true. As I pointed out above, look at the historical record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States

Most of them wind up being good things. It's just the really high profile ones that make the news that are usually bad.

 

[RVonse]

The perfect example of why a president should have power to pardon is the Russia dog and pony show. Where people like Manafort are being unfairly setup, tried, and convicted soley for political reasons. Add to that the injustice of plea bargain deals for the purpose of prosecution malpractice. Many people just get unjustly caught up in the legal system. And the only way out is a pardon.

 

[laughing dog]

If you had not skipped over my own constructions in posts you would see that my own suggestions of fairness, merit, application process, board or committee within the judicial branch are compatible with the 3 items you are asking "why are they so hard?" You will need a constitutional amendment as well as state level changes since governors also have these powers.

And, if you think about, judges effectively have this power as well. And, in the US, at the state and local level, judges are also elected (i.e. politicians).

 

[Patooka]

The perfect example of why a president should have power to pardon is the Russia dog and pony show. Where people like Manafort are being unfairly setup, tried, and convicted soley for political reasons. Add to that the injustice of plea bargain deals for the purpose of prosecution malpractice. Many people just get unjustly caught up in the legal system. And the only way out is a pardon.

If this was even 1% true, and not some partisan bullshit, you should have no problems listing examples of this happening over the last two centuries.

 

[ZiprHead]

The perfect example of why a president should have power to pardon is the Russia dog and pony show. Where people like Manafort are being unfairly setup, tried, and convicted soley for political reasons. Add to that the injustice of plea bargain deals for the purpose of prosecution malpractice. Many people just get unjustly caught up in the legal system. And the only way out is a pardon.

All these people were dirty before they stepped into the limelight. Dirty people need to learn to lay low, not thrust themselves into the most scrutinized positions in the entire world. They did this to themselves.

Or are you advocating law enforcement look away when they see obvious criminal activity?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think if you read all of my posts in this thread you will find I am not in major disagreement with those directions.

I haven't responded to where we agree (nor am I arguing with you) because I'm looking for any reasons or justifications why things are or should be the way that they are, rather than why I am right.

I read the wikipedia article linked to above and I learned a little more. According to it, I was correct that pardons are not the reversal of a conviction, setting the innocent free, but instead about pardoning or excusing the guilty. And according to the article the pardoned person has to accept the pardon, and in doing so admit that they are guilty of the crime. So people who are pardoned are confessed law breakers. I definitely find that unjust.

As I wrote above, perhaps the president and judges should have the power to order cases re-opened and re-reviewed, and allow new evidence to reverse convictions and find people who were wrongly convicted actually not guilty, but that isn't what a pardon is.

A pardon apparently requires no reason or argument or evidence and can be done on the whim of the president. That is my core problem with it. It appears to be him elevating people of his choice above the law, or above the consequences of them breaking the law. That is fundamentally unjust if I understand this correctly. Perhaps I misunderstand? Perhaps there are arguments for why this should be so that I haven't thought of?

There must also be a streamlined or emergency method or single person for a fast case of operation

I am fine with that, but make it a trained judicial review officer and not a person who may have no understanding of the law.

The hyperbole is misplaced as in practice this power is hardly used for corrupt purposes.

I disagree, and even if I agreed I don't find ends justify the means logic convincing. Just because a power isn't routinely abused, doesn't mean the door should be kept wide open for it to be abused.

You will need a constitutional amendment as well as state level changes since governors also have these powers.

So do it. I am surprised there isn't more of a push for this, especially after Nixon was pardoned, and especially now that Trump has this power and is tossing around the concept of him even pardoning himself.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I haven't responded to where we agree (nor am I arguing with you) because I'm looking for any reasons or justifications why things are or should be the way that they are, rather than why I am right.

I read the wikipedia article linked to above and I learned a little more. According to it, I was correct that pardons are not the reversal of a conviction, setting the innocent free, but instead about pardoning or excusing the guilty. And according to the article the pardoned person has to accept the pardon, and in doing so admit that they are guilty of the crime. So people who are pardoned are confessed law breakers. I definitely find that unjust.

Unjust in what sense? That the incarcerated are forced to admit guilt? Or that they were convicted based on what are arguably very unfair laws (most of the pardons issued by Obama were for minor drug offenses that had ridiculous sentencing). The answer to this greatly determines where the rest of the conversation might go.

As I wrote above, perhaps the president and judges should have the power to order cases re-opened and re-reviewed, and allow new evidence to reverse convictions and find people who were wrongly convicted actually not guilty, but that isn't what a pardon is.

Technically, a lot of the drug offenders were guilty, but for minor, non-violent offenses. You think harsh drug sentences (which disproportionately influence minorities) are 'just'?

A pardon apparently requires no reason or argument or evidence and can be done on the whim of the president. That is my core problem with it. It appears to be him elevating people of his choice above the law, or above the consequences of them breaking the law. That is fundamentally unjust if I understand this correctly. Perhaps I misunderstand? Perhaps there are arguments for why this should be so that I haven't thought of?

Your impression is correct. Remember that the constitution was written over 200 years ago, when it was thought that we would elect the best of ourselves, who would be wise and magnanimous. That worked out well.....

I am fine with that, but make it a trained judicial review officer and not a person who may have no understanding of the law.

The hyperbole is misplaced as in practice this power is hardly used for corrupt purposes.

I disagree, and even if I agreed I don't find ends justify the means logic convincing. Just because a power isn't routinely abused, doesn't mean the door should be kept wide open for it to be abused.

You will need a constitutional amendment as well as state level changes since governors also have these powers.

So do it. I am surprised there isn't more of a push for this, especially after Nixon was pardoned, and especially now that Trump has this power and is tossing around the concept of him even pardoning himself.

I agree in principle here. The high profile political cases where a pardon was used are definitely a corrupt use of the pardon power, but the majority of them, I would argue (at least from previous administrations) were mostly not horrible.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Technically, a lot of the drug offenders were guilty, but for minor, non-violent offenses. You think harsh drug sentences (which disproportionately influence minorities) are 'just'?

That's a good point. But the better remedy would be to undo those laws and enact a blanket ruling that states those laws never existed as proper laws, so those "convicted" of them never were, and are to go free. They are innocent and need not have any criminal record or admit to any wrongdoing. That would apply to EVERYONE and not just select people that the President, governor or whoever decides to privilege, while others still sit in prison for the same actions.

 

[untermensche]

As the chief law enforcement officer, of course that power resides with the President. Who should have that power?

Nobody.

So you want greater power for wrongful convictions. How anarchistic.

There should be a non-political process to examine all potential wrongful convictions.

Looking for some political dictator to do it is just more of your love of dictators.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Making it harder to keep someone in jail is dictatorship now.

I guess making it easier to keep someone in jail isn't. Slavery is Freedom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As the chief law enforcement officer, of course that power resides with the President. Who should have that power?

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.

The problem is "guilty" doesn't always mean they did wrong.

Take a real example:

Manager of a regional office. He was able to sign checks in order to deal with little stuff that came up. Note that he had nothing to do with payroll.

It turns out the top people were playing dirty with the IRS, withholding but not forwarding the money to the IRS. When things fell apart they skipped. The IRS views anyone who had the power to sign checks as guilty of failing to send the money to the IRS even if they were totally unaware of the situation.

The judge who ordered him to pay upwards of $1 million (note: not dischargeable) knew it was completely unreasonable but that's what the law said, his hands were tied. He even advised the guy to emigrate.

While I don't think pardons apply to IRS debt it should be clear that miscarriages of justice can happen. The pardon is the last resort system for fixing such problems.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Good point. While I think there is a need for pardons having multiple people involved would be a good idea. The system fails when you elect a moron like His Flatulence.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Technically, a lot of the drug offenders were guilty, but for minor, non-violent offenses. You think harsh drug sentences (which disproportionately influence minorities) are 'just'?

That's a good point. But the better remedy would be to undo those laws and enact a blanket ruling that states those laws never existed as proper laws, so those "convicted" of them never were, and are to go free. They are innocent and need not have any criminal record or admit to any wrongdoing. That would apply to EVERYONE and not just select people that the President, governor or whoever decides to privilege, while others still sit in prison for the same actions.

The good news is that this did eventually happen in the states where marijuana was legalized. It's not 100% though. Baby steps, I guess. :/

 

[southernhybrid]

Before Trump, I don't think the presidential pardon was often abused. A lot of people don't think Nixon should have been pardoned, but despite me personally demonstrating against the man when he was running for president and despite him actually being a crook, I think that Ford did the right think by pardoning him. The country was very divided, though not as bad as it is these days, putting Nixon on trial for doing what he did, would have only made the country more divided. it might have caused chaos. By pardoning Nixon, we were all able to move on. I don't have a problem with the presidential pardon, but after seeing how Trump is abusing it, it would be good to have some strong guidelines as to when and for what reasons it can be done. It's not fair. Well guess what. Life's not fair. We can work to try and make it more just but we will never have justice for all, despite that supposedly being an American ideal. Ideals are something to strive for but they are rarely if ever reached.

No president is perfect and most have been involved with scandals. In fact, Obama is the only president since Nixon that hasn't been involved in a single scandal and hasn't had a single person that he appointed to his cabinet become involved in a scandal. I saw a chart on this a few days ago. The Republicans have had far more scandals than the Democrats. Just sayin'. Still, for better or worse, presidents are elected and we give them a lot of power once they are put in the position. Impeachment seems like punishment enough to me, if a president does something unlawful, although I would think there may be some exceptions, especially intentional violence outside of war. Wars in themselves are atrocities imo. They are never fair. The very term "war crime" doesn't make sense to me, but I digress.

I know many of you will disagree with me about this. That's cool. We all have our own opinions. I've already accepted that my country and its systems are far from perfect. We could change our constitution, but that might actually make things worse, so maybe it's a good thing that changing it is extremely difficult. At this point, I would be thrilled if we could just get the unhinged man out of the office of president as he is doing far more damage than any other president in my lifetime has.

 

[laughing dog]

That's a good point. But the better remedy would be to undo those laws and enact a blanket ruling that states those laws never existed as proper laws, so those "convicted" of them never were, and are to go free. They are innocent and need not have any criminal record or admit to any wrongdoing. That would apply to EVERYONE and not just select people that the President, governor or whoever decides to privilege, while others still sit in prison for the same actions.

That better remedy is a utopian thinking.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's a good point. But the better remedy would be to undo those laws and enact a blanket ruling that states those laws never existed as proper laws, so those "convicted" of them never were, and are to go free. They are innocent and need not have any criminal record or admit to any wrongdoing. That would apply to EVERYONE and not just select people that the President, governor or whoever decides to privilege, while others still sit in prison for the same actions.

That better remedy is a utopian thinking.

Courts keep a record of every conviction. Prisoners have files stating what they were convicted for. Doesn't take much to let the people go who shouldn't be in there once the law is struck retroactively. Why is this so utiopian to you? Or do you wish to maintain this privilege for some and not for others at the whim of the President?