Presidential Pardons: Necessary Practice or Archaic Form of Corruption

[MrMacphisto]

Here is the question: Should pardons remain a power of the presidency? This topic was touched upon in another thread, so I started thinking... why do we allow this? Personally, I think it's just another way that the people in power can help their corrupt friends out or follow through with their perverse agendas.

One of the most annoying cases of pardoning that I remember reading about was how Carter pardoned some Puerto Rican nationalist who famously stated he would try to attack America again, right after being released. This never actually happened, but it seems to support the idea that pardons aren't such a good idea.

I already prefer to make the office of the president more subject to the Congress, but pardons seem especially excessive as far as executive powers go.

What do you guys think?

[DEV]

Aside from perhaps getting some leeway over someone or getting your nephew who's just done some shoplifting out of trouble, I honestly can't see why the pardon exists or at least, why the President is able to have complete control over it. You'd think with the 'checks and balances' system, there'd be at least one body of Congress overlooking the candidates.

[MrMacphisto]

I agree... I don't understand this part of the system either. It's just another flaw in our slowly declining system of government.

[Dave2112]

It's not so much that the practice of Presidential pardons is wrong, it's that it's being misused. As always, if you give someone unchecked power, they will abuse it.

The President should have the ability to pardon anyone he wants, but it should be used responsibly. There are a lot of innocent people in prison. Quite a few have been cleared of thier crimes with modern DNA technology, etc, etc. The ability to right a wrong should rest with someone.

However, I doubt the Founding Fathers intended some of the pardons that have happened. Of course, it's also a matter of public opinion. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, it was initially seen as a horribly bad move. Emotions were high and the lust for vengeance was fresh. Over time, however, the pardon of Nixon has come to be seen as a bold move on Ford's part. An effort to help the country move on during a time of crisis and spare our society the pain of a drawn-out trial and the polarization it was sure to cause.

On the other hand, many pardons have been nothing more than the Good Old Boy network protecting thier own. Bush Sr. using his pardon to get the Iran-Contra guys off the hook, for example. And everyone and his brother knows that King George W. the Second is going to pardon Scooter Libby right before he leaves office. They get a scapegoat to protect Prince Cheney and his henchmen, then make sure that scapegoat gets away with it. There will be enough appeals and possibly a retrial so that a few years pass and the case falls out of the public eye. Then, a pardon just becomes news fodder for a few days, then goes away. See? No one has to actually keep thier promise that "leaks will be prosecuted, no matter where they originated."

Pure genius.

[MrMacphisto]

It's not so much that the practice of Presidential pardons is wrong, it's that it's being misused. As always, if you give someone unchecked power, they will abuse it.

The President should have the ability to pardon anyone he wants, but it should be used responsibly. There are a lot of innocent people in prison. Quite a few have been cleared of thier crimes with modern DNA technology, etc, etc. The ability to right a wrong should rest with someone.

However, I doubt the Founding Fathers intended some of the pardons that have happened. Of course, it's also a matter of public opinion. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, it was initially seen as a horribly bad move. Emotions were high and the lust for vengeance was fresh. Over time, however, the pardon of Nixon has come to be seen as a bold move on Ford's part. An effort ot help the country move on during a time of crisis and spare our society the pain of a drawn-out trial and the polarization it was sure to cause.

On the other hand, many pardons have been nothing more than the Godd Old Boy network protecting thier own. Bush Sr. using his pardon to get the Iran-Contra guys off the hook, for example. And everyone and his brother knows that King George W. the Second is going to pardon Scooter Libby right before he leaves office. They get a scapegoat to protect Prince Cheney and his henchmen, then make sure that scapegoat gets away with it. There will be enough appeals and possibly a retrial so that a few years pass and the case falls out of the public eye. Then, a pardon just becomes news fodder for a few days, then goes away. See? No one has to actually keep thier promise that "leaks will be prosecuted, no matter where they originated."

Pure genius.

Good points, but I have to argue that justice being served is up to the judicial system, not the chief executive. If DNA evidence that proves the innocence of a person arises, then it is up to our system of appeals to allow someone a chance to prove their innocence. It shouldn't involve an executive sticking his/her nose into this ugly business.

Personally, I think DEV had it right. Pardoning violates the concept of checks and balances.

[Brafus]

The only people who should be pardoned, are those border patrol agents that shot the drug dealer, that was trying to get away. Those men are now serving prison time for doing their jobs.

[MrMacphisto]

I can definitely sympathize with you on that one. That's a pardon even I'll agree with....

[Icycle]

Good points, but I have to argue that justice being served is up to the judicial system, not the chief executive. If DNA evidence that proves the innocence of a person arises, then it is up to our system of appeals to allow someone a chance to prove their innocence. It shouldn't involve an executive sticking his/her nose into this ugly business.

Personally, I think DEV had it right. Pardoning violates the concept of checks and balances.
It is part of the system of checks and balances. It is a check of the executive branch against the judicial branch. If a corrupt or incompetent judicial system gives a man an unfair or unjustified sentence, the executive pardon provides a way to bypass the judicial system. Many state governers have the same power to pardon.

Like any part of our system of government, pardons can be abused for politcal or personal ends. That does not necessarily make them an inherently bad thing. The desire of politicians to get re-elected and to protect their legacy helps to prevent some of the most egregious abuses of this power. For example, Gerald Ford was not re-elected, probably at least in part due to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon.

[MrMacphisto]

It is part of the system of checks and balances. It is a check of the executive branch against the judicial branch. If a corrupt or incompetent judicial system gives a man an unfair or unjustified sentence, the executive pardon provides a way to bypass the judicial system. Many state governers have the same power to pardon.

Like any part of our system of government, pardons can be abused for politcal or personal ends. That does not necessarily make them an inherently bad thing. The desire of politicians to get re-elected and to protect their legacy helps to prevent some of the most egregious abuses of this power. For example, Gerald Ford was not re-elected, probably at least in part due to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon.

That's why they wait until the end of their terms to pardon usually. I see what you mean, but I would argue that they are rarely used in the way you mentioned. Usually, it's a power used to help out partners in crime or to serve some political agenda.

[tickledgirl]

Usually, it's a power used to help out partners in crime or to serve some political agenda.

No, but that's the cases you're most likely to hear about. Clinton pardon dozens of people. But it's pretty dull to hear how he pardoned some woman who got nailed for "conspiracy" to do something because she ran an errand for her boyfriend. And that's not especially newsworthy. "Yeah, the system worked the way it's supposed to work. So?

It's when the system is abused that we notice. But that doesn't mean that the system is abused every time.

[Mastertank1]

Pardons should be given out once a year, in whatever number required, by a committee chosen at random from the national voter registration lists, with certain modifications/exceptions.
No person who has ever held any elected or appointed office under the Federal Government or any State or Local government will be eligible to serve on this committee.
No person who has ever been admitted to the bar of the law, or who has ever profesionally practiced or taught law or assisted in the practice or teaching of law would be allowed to serve on the committee.
(Note that this provision would keep me off the committee; I'm a paralegal)

Once chosen, these people would be transported to an undisclosed location at government expense to deliberate the granting of pardons in cases where injustice has been done.
There would be 31 members of the committee. They would be provided with a clerical staff to help them with letters asking for consideration of particular cases that had come in since last year's committee met.
Any member can propose a case for consideration, but only a unanimous vote of the entire committee can actually grant a pardon.
The identities of the committee members are never revealed until after the month of deliberations for that year is over.
From the time they leave home to travel to the committee meeting place until they return home, they are prevented from making or recieving any personal communication; they can require that form notifications stating that are temporarily in federal service be sent to friends, employers and loved ones. They are allowed to read newspapers and magazines, and listen to the news on any TV or Radio news source they choose. If they get news from the internet, they can have their sources put up on a screen by a remote operator in another room, but they are not allowed to send or recieve emails.
Once any person has served on the committee for pardons, they can never be selected to serve on it again.
The law would protect their jobs or non-job benefits until they come back, and they would each be paid 1000/day tax free, and that income would not be counted to disqualify any person from recieving benefits of any kind that they were recieving or had applied for.
They can intervene in any case under US jurisdiction, Federal, State, Local or Military, to pardon a person who has been unjustly convicted, or to commute a sentence they deem too harsh.

That is my proposal on how to handle pardons; I think that would eliminate the political bullshit that dominates now, and would, if not eliminate, at least drastically limit the potential for corruption of the process.

what does anyone else think? I'd really like to hear your opinions on this.

[MrMacphisto]

No, but that's the cases you're most likely to hear about. Clinton pardon dozens of people. But it's pretty dull to hear how he pardoned some woman who got nailed for "conspiracy" to do something because she ran an errand for her boyfriend. And that's not especially newsworthy. "Yeah, the system worked the way it's supposed to work. So?

It's when the system is abused that we notice. But that doesn't mean that the system is abused every time.

Fair enough...

[MrMacphisto]

Pardons should be given out once a year, in whatever number required, by a committee chosen at random from the national voter registration lists, with certain modifications/exceptions.
No person who has ever held any elected or appointed office under the Federal Government or any State or Local government will be eligible to serve on this committee.
No person who has ever been admitted to the bar of the law, or who has ever profesionally practiced or taught law or assisted in the practice or teaching of law would be allowed to serve on the committee.
(Note that this provision would keep me off the committee; I'm a paralegal)

Once chosen, these people would be transported to an undisclosed location at government expense to deliberate the granting of pardons in cases where injustice has been done.
There would be 31 members of the committee. They would be provided with a clerical staff to help them with letters asking for consideration of particular cases that had come in since last year's committee met.
Any member can propose a case for consideration, but only a unanimous vote of the entire committee can actually grant a pardon.
The identities of the committee members are never revealed until after the month of deliberations for that year is over.
From the time they leave home to travel to the committee meeting place until they return home, they are prevented from making or recieving any personal communication; they can require that form notifications stating that are temporarily in federal service be sent to friends, employers and loved ones. They are allowed to read newspapers and magazines, and listen to the news on any TV or Radio news source they choose. If they get news from the internet, they can have their sources put up on a screen by a remote operator in another room, but they are not allowed to send or recieve emails.
Once any person has served on the committee for pardons, they can never be selected to serve on it again.
The law would protect their jobs or non-job benefits until they come back, and they would each be paid 1000/day tax free, and that income would not be counted to disqualify any person from recieving benefits of any kind that they were recieving or had applied for.
They can intervene in any case under US jurisdiction, Federal, State, Local or Military, to pardon a person who has been unjustly convicted, or to commute a sentence they deem too harsh.

That is my proposal on how to handle pardons; I think that would eliminate the political bullshit that dominates now, and would, if not eliminate, at least drastically limit the potential for corruption of the process.

what does anyone else think? I'd really like to hear your opinions on this.

That's an exceptionally convoluted system, but I like it. Perhaps, this committee could also be responsible for determining when Congress gets pay raises -- it would keep them from raising their own salaries so damn much.

[TickleWolf]

Hey, speaking of good 'ol boys protecting their own, how's Roger Clinton and Mark Rich doing these days?