Pardons aren’t illegitimate. They’re constitutional (Article II, Section 2). They’re also compassionate. We need more of them. Who should get pardoned? Contrary to myth, there aren’t a lot of innocent people on death row. But there are quite a few guilty people who ought to be forgiven. For example, President Bush pardoned a 50-year-old Missouri farmer named Leslie Owen Collier. In 1995, Collier accidentally poisoned three bald eagles. An indisputably solid citizen, Collier was horrified by the birds’ death. Some self-aggrandizing prosecutor went after him anyway, and he wound up a felon. There are thousands of Leslie Colliers out there. The trick is bringing them to the attention of the White House. That’s not easy. – Tucker Carlson, the Daily Beast
The president of the United States should not be able to unilaterally pardon people for crimes they have committed, or for crimes they may be charged with committing. This archaic practice flies in the face of the justice system and should be abolished. Thousands of petitions for pardons are sent for presidential review every year. This takes time and energy away from a person who should be focused on innovation and leadership, not favors and forgiveness. Why, oh, why, should one individual be able to gain favor (and freedom) over another in a democratic system such as ours? The pardon system should be done away with, and along with it the ethical controversy that it portends. – Thomas Kostigen, MarketWatch.com
14 Comments
If I’m not mistaken, Governors can set aside and pardon crimes to a certain extent.
Obviously, there are crimes that need to be pardon and of course the ever popular forgiveness of politically hatched crimes that are set aside.
After all, Thanksgiving turkeys are pardon. Surely a ‘do not go to jail card’ an be passed out in the game board of life.
I’m divided. I think pardons for wrongful convictions are just, like clemency. The eagle thing was bs. I also believe there are far more innocent people on death row or in prison for crimes they did not commit. Every one of those questionable convictions should be able to show proof- and too often they are denied that right- even when the evidence is indisputable.
I do NOT think the President should be able to pardon himself nor anyone in his own cabinet or doing work for him. And that should apply to ANY PARTY”S PRESIDENT.
The pardons are ok; it’s the abuse that really rankles. Example: Clinton’s pardon of Rich.
There are cases out there so egregious that they demand intercession, like those 2 border patrol officers who are in prison for shooting a Mexican drug dealer in the butt. They should get pardons AND medals.
“Collier accidentally poisoned three bald eagles”
Huh?
How DOES one “accidentally” poison three bald eagles?
bush is pardoning the slime of humanity. He best issue a full pardon for himself and the rest of his administration is my thinking. Very little good may it do him.
BlueJay
Posted December 17, 2008 at 7:54 am | Permalink
“Collier accidentally poisoned three bald eagles”
Huh?
How DOES one “accidentally” poison three bald eagles?
_________________________________________________
BJ,
Collier’s crime was stupidity. He put out hamburger meat laced with poison to kill coyotes. He wasn’t really a bad guy; just dumb.
This all smacks of the Divine Right of Kings. Other places are amazed that one man, without challenge, can negate the judicial processes. No other democracy invests so much power in it’s chief of state as does the USA. Nonsense, utter nonsense.
The pardon power was originally envisioned as a clemency of last resort. America began as a loose confederation of rebellious states with a weak national government, and deliberately so. I don’t recall reading the debate on it, but I suspect an imperial cover-your-backside scheme was not something they envisioned (though some of them did have monarchist tendencies).
A constitutional amendment to change the pardon procedure might not be a bad idea but, contrary to Tucker Carlson’s suggestion, I’m sure they are innocent people on death row.
But this recent development, wherein the Prez “pardons” people who haven’t even been charged, let alone convicted, boggles the mind. How can you pardon someone for something that hasn’t happened yet?
The absolute nature of the pardon power is a problem. Until then, anytime someone is pardoned for charges that are pending, or have not even been made, it should be regarded as the indefensible act of political cover it clearly is.
By the way, when do you think Bush will pardon all the potential state witnessess?
As long as there are hard and fast sentencing guidelines like mandatory minimums and 3-strike rules, there will be a need for pardons.
The case of the farm and the eagles mentioned is a perfect example. Was he guilty – yes. Is Justice and the best interest of the country served by continuing to have a (presumably) good, otherwise lawful citizen labeled as a felon – no.
There should not be pardons of any actions undertaken by the pres. or his administration.
sursum Posted December 17, 2008 at 8:37 am
This all smacks of the Divine Right of Kings. Other places are amazed that one man, without challenge, can negate the judicial processes. No other democracy invests so much power in it’s chief of state as does the USA. Nonsense, utter nonsense.
——
Ditto, sursum!
JUSTICE is a word that has lost much of its meaning in today’s world. These words from the thread header, “Some self-aggrandizing prosecutor went after him anyway,” happen ALL TOO OFTEN.
Wouldn’t it be a better world if the word justice meant what it should? And, if politics didn’t interfere with justice — at any level?
Other places are amazed that one man, without challenge, can negate the judicial processes. No other democracy invests so much power in it’s chief of state as does the USA.
On the contrary; the pardon power is a fairly routine one. It was, and is, routinely held by heads of government/executives, as it is held by most, if not all governors. As to the US giving so much power to it’s head of state; it is important to remember that the President is both head of State, and head of government/chief executive simultaneously. Most nations separate the roles between a president or monarch (i.e. in the British case, a Queen) and a prime minister or premier. The President is head of state; the PM, head of government. A president is both.
That said, in some ways a president is in fact weaker than a head of government in a parliamentary system. Because he is not a member of the legislature (unlike a PM), he has no real or formal influence, aside from moral suasion, over that legislature, even in his own party.
Of course, in some ways, he is also stronger. A PM can be removed at any time by a vote of no confidence; a President serves a fix term and cannot be removed absent the extraordinary remedy of impeachment. Moreover, a President has independent powers that he exercises by virture of his status as head of the executive branch separate and apart from any legislative role (of which he as relatively little).
It’s always an apples/oranges thing to compare a president to most other heads of state. The US is a rather unique political system both in its division of governmental powers and in its federal division of authority (or at least, what’s left of it). It’s unlike most other places.
The pardon power is entirely proper, and serves, in most cases (despite the occasional abuses) the ends of justice. Remember, Linda, justice is not an absolute; just what “justice” is depends entirely on where one sits. What appears to be justice to one is a miscarriage to another.
Remember, too, a president can pardon only federal offenses; the vast majority of criminal prosecutions in this country are at the State level, which the President has no authority over.
BTW – a pardon or commutation can be turned down by the pardonee, since accepting a pardon is an implicit admission of guilt. A commutation reduces or eliminates a sentence without eliminating the underlying adjudication.
And no, I don’t think Bush will be pardoning members of his own administration, or himself, willy-nilly. I have yet to see ANYONE lay out anything approaching impeachable offenses.
“GMC70
Posted December 17, 2008 at 11:38 am | Permalink
The pardon power is entirely proper, and serves, in most cases (despite the occasional abuses) the ends of justice. Remember, Linda, justice is not an absolute; just what “justice” is depends entirely on where one sits. What appears to be justice to one is a miscarriage to another.”
GMC70, I am glad I read your post before I started typing… you echoed my sentiments exactly.
The pardon power fills the necessary void left grey by the black and white letters of the law.
GMC70: If the appeals process a has not dismissed the charge or shortened the sentence, where does executive intervention fit into the scheme of things? Parliaments have ministers or attorneys general to review a case by order of Cabinet to see if justice has been done. It’s the ultimate appeal in the process. In the UK, pardons are granted under very restrictive circustances and must reflect an abomination of the justice for their systems have a tendency to reward more and forgive less. In Canada you can apply for a Pardon after you have served your sentence but may wait 3 year to apply. This is usually done where a criminal record (not a violent conviction such as murder, rape or assault etc.) inhibits a normal life such as getting a job, volunteering for charity work or saving embarassement of, or denying opportunty to, family (childeren) members. A Pardon Board, not a part of Government, exists to make the decision to wipe the slate clean. I still think it smacks of the Divine Right of Kings here.
Ah, but SS, just what is an “abomination of the [sic] justice?”
Justice is relative, as is “fairness.” You seem to assume that there is some objective standard to apply here; but it is an illusion. It is assumed under the false premise that what seems so “obvious” to us must be the same for others. It isn’t, of course.