7 ms·
It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. It's like saying you're a pacifist... exc
by danenania 6y ago
It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.
It's like saying you're a pacifist... except for Tuesdays when you go on a weekly killing spree.
I imagine that if we can survive and progress long enough to have real democracy and rule of law, our present system will be viewed a transitional period that, for all its very real improvements, was still structurally closer to feudalism than actual democracy.
- brlewis 6y agoQuestion for history buffs: What are some instances where you'd say, "Gee, I'm glad Presidential pardon was available"?
- segfaultbuserr 6y agoThe standard answer, of course: a war, especially after a national civil war, prosecuting everyone who participated in the enemy's side will be a disaster. Also whistleblowing cases.
- laughinghan 6y agoTo the extremely limited and minimal extent that whistleblowers have been pardoned, good on that president/governor, but I think it is atrocious that whistleblower protection relies on pardon power—we need much, much stronger protections for whistleblowers, in my opinion. I think 90% of people are basically good but don't really want to stick their neck out of line—which means rules by themselves will never constrain the 5% of people that are malevolent. We need to empower the other 5% of people who are willing to stick their neck out to do the right thing. That includes institutionally empowering whistleblowers. Snowden committed a crime, sure, prosecute him—just give him a fair trial, for goodness' sake.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago> we need much, much stronger protections for whistleblowers, in my opinion. [...] That includes institutionally empowering whistleblowers. Agreed. Relying on pardoning is at best a stop-gap solution to a broken system.
- jgust 6y agoThrowing out a prediction: If the Biden/Harris ticket wins in 2020 and Trump is charged with anything, expect a pardon from the president. People will rage for a bit, get tired, run out of attention span, and move on to the next controversy.
- mschuster91 6y agoTrump is going to get screwed anyway, even if Biden would step that low (he'd risk alienating all the progressives, I doubt he's dumb enough to do this) Trump would still have to answer to the New York DA.
- BeKindAndLearn 6y ago> expect a pardon from the president. Biden is on record saying this is right off the table. He will not pardon Trump.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoThis sort of comment makes me wish I had a dog and I was drinking coffee or beer so I could say something like: "Ha! This comment just made me spurt my coffee all over the dog!" You mean to say a politician is on record having made a promise, and you believe them? Because that doesn't seem like an argument anyone would intentionally want to make.
- dredmorbius 6y agoSource: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-says-he-would-not-pardon-trump-n1207531 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-says-he...
- Alupis 6y agoWhat, specifically, would Trump require a pardon for? Being unlikable to some of the country?
- srtjstjsj 6y agoHatch Act violations, for starters.
- johnnyo 6y agoThe general amnesty granted to Confederate soldiers at the end of the Civil War, though not without controversy, was an important step in the reunification of the nation.
- AndrewBissell 6y agoObama commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence was good although I'd have preferred to see a full pardon.
- mikeyouse 6y agoCarter pardoning all of the draft dodgers from Vietnam was a decent use of the power. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/president-carter-pardons-draft-dodgers-jan-21-1977-346493 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/president-carter-p...
- jacobush 6y agoCarter looks better and better.
- BeKindAndLearn 6y agoBiden's promising to pardon all non-violent drug crimes, is he not? Though not historical, if it were to happen that could mark a turning point for our country. Though one could also use that same pardon power to avoid prosecution for domestic terrorists that support your agenda or crimes of election fraud. So I'm definitely on the side of revoking one person's power to override the entire judiciary for arbitrary reasons.
- eesmith 6y agoI can't find mention of him making that specific promise of pardoning all non-violent drug crimes. I did find https://joebiden.com/justice/ https://joebiden.com/justice/ saying: > Biden believes no one should be in jail because of cannabis use. As president, he will decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions. And, he will support the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes, leave decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states, and reschedule cannabis as a schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts. > Biden believes that no one should be imprisoned for the use of illegal drugs alone. Instead, Biden will require federal courts to divert these individuals to drug courts so they receive treatment to address their substance use disorder. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expungement > A very real distinction exists between an expungement and a pardon. When an expungement is granted, the person whose record is expunged may, for most purposes, treat the event as if it never occurred. A pardon (also called "executive clemency") does not "erase" the event; rather, it constitutes forgiveness. In the United States, an expungement can be granted only by a judge, while a pardon can be granted only by the President of the United States for federal offenses I have no clue how Biden can promise to automatically expunge prior convictions if only judges can expunge a record.
- toast0 6y ago> I have no clue how Biden can promise to automatically expunge prior convictions if only judges can expunge a record. Political promises aren't binding. So you can promise whatever. Politicians in general love to promise things that aren't even within the baliwick of the position they're running for. The one that always bugs me is California mayoral candidates promising to fix the schools, when schools aren't a function of city government at all.
- refurb 6y agoI dove into the list of people pardoned by Clinton and I would say most were people who had either served their sentence (or most of it) and had demonstrated true rehabilitation. The pardon wiped the slates clean for them. That seems like a good thing?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- macspoofing 6y ago>It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. Says who? And why? >I imagine that if we can survive and progress long enough to have real democracy and rule of law Why do you want 'real' democracy? What makes you think that getting rid of other non-democratic institutions, like Congress, like the Presidency, and institute Athenian-style mob rule - will make the world a better place? I am being facetious, and I get what you mean, but do you honestly think your life would be better if this particular, and relatively minor, aspect of the Presidency would be curtailed?
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago> but do you honestly think your life would be better if this particular, and relatively minor, aspect of the Presidency would be curtailed? Why even bother saying this? Each of us can want / advocate for whatever changes each of us prefers in any given moment. There's plenty of resources in the world, and within each of us, to want better for, say, our kids; more space exploration; a presidential role with fewer perks; an end to hunger; and our local street to be kept cleaner.
- macspoofing 6y ago>Each of us can want / advocate for whatever changes each of us prefers in any given moment. I understand that. I'm saying you need a reason to go through the effort of changing the constitution and a 240 year old tradition. This is why I asked what all that effort in getting rid of the pardon would do for the world. And it seems, the answer is not much if anything at all. So my argument is, maybe find something more worthwhile to concern yourself with?
- penagwin 6y agoI think it’s meant as a “check” on the judicial branch - if the head of the executive isn’t okay with the judicial branch’s dicision. But this isn’t really clarified, and in practice it’s usually used incredibly ambiguously boardering nefarious.
- WealthVsSurvive 6y agoIt might've been a check when the executive did little aside from protecting from foreign invaders. The terms-of-service for what the executive are has changed. It's not only anti-democratic, it's anti-republic as well.
- ardy42 6y ago> I think it’s meant as a “check” on the judicial branch - if the head of the executive isn’t okay with the judicial branch’s dicision. It's also a check of the legislative branch. If someone's convicted under an unjust law, a pardon can restore justice. IIRC, appealing to the leader for justice has a long history that predates the US Constitution. IIRC, such appeals have been an important safety valve, and the formalization of the leader's responses have resulted in whole new bodies of law (e.g. Equity came from the King attempting to correct deficiencies in the Common Law in cases that were appealed to him, then delegating the implementation and processing the appeals made to him to members of his court).
- kmlx 6y agoon pardons, and the many reasons why they're used: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon on the many flaws of democracy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy also, the democracy index: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
- bawolff 6y agoI think its better to err on the side of not punishing people rather than punishing them too much. Pardons provide an escape hatch where we can skip a punishment if it seems manifestly unjust.
- jacobush 6y ago... for the rich and connected. The rest serve time.
- mc32 6y agoMost people think of presidential pardons, but there are also pardons from governors that happen regularly as well, though not as public given their smaller stage.
- yyyk 6y agoThere's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. The reason is that we need protection also from the power of judicial branch, which is abusable like any branch with power. Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. In a democracy, all branches are checked by the others, and this is a necessary check on the judicial branch. It could be done differently (approval by Congress or some third party?), but not having a check is dangerous.
- lordnacho 6y agoNow suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon (I don't know about jurisdiction). What would be the check on presidential power in that case? I think the pardoning thing is absolutely wrong in the US form, where it is used quite often. I think it's just crazy that you can do something illegal but if you can just talk one guy into it, you are off the hook. The only case I see where it makes sense is that there's some corner case that everyone can agree on. But then it would involve more than just one guy on his last day in office.
- yyyk 6y agoThe kid could always be charged on some other state-level technicality. These charges would be state-level and therefore not subject to Presidential pardon. That said, such a limited abuse would not justify ditching the pardon power. History has shown that not having a pardon power would have been impossible - the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam, without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc. A lot of these aren't corner cases, but they were necessary to still have a country. IMHO, the by far best solution is to have it in a more limited form so it requires more than one guy.
- triceratops 6y ago> the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved. > without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc. It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.
- salawat 6y ago>It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. It isn't, it's actually an integral part needed to make the entire thing work. The problem is when it isn't treated with the restraint due to the role it is meant to fulfill. The President is a short-cycle control mechanism. The legislature longer, and the judiciary the longest based on the sheer weight of precedent they need wade through. Now, interestingly, and somewhat tangentially. There is a moral/traditional controversy over whether the President can legitimately abuse the Pardon power. There is a body of scholarship that hold that the Pardon is meant to be applied only when the President is acting to further the interests of the Nation. To riff through some examples of how that plays out, (as mentioned elsewhere downthread): Civil War Confederate Amnesty, A-Okay. Carter and the draft-dodgers, a-okay, Clinton pardoning his brother on his last day in office? Absolutely not okay,as it wasn't furthering the interests of the country as a whole. Nor would Trump's pardoning necessarily qualify. That isn't law though. That's ethos, and tradition.