6 ms·

So when we do get rid of presidential pardons? We've seen "an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that

• jayd16 6y ago
  Or we could hold politicians accountable for failing to hold the president accountable through the systems that exist.
  • lovecg 6y ago
    People who elected these politicians evidently approve of their performance.
• gogopuppygogo 6y ago
  Maybe we should focus on fixing the broken justice system. There are many more people unjustly served than justly these days.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• theshrike79 6y ago
  > So when we do get rid of presidential pardons? Not an American, but I just learned a few days ago that a good deal of presidential pardons are used to give citizenship rights back to people who have already served their sentence - sometimes decades ago. After the pardon they can actually vote and hold public office. Maybe you should, you know, stop taking away people's rights after they're served their court-appointed sentence?
  • reducesuffering 6y ago
    That's a separate issue. Some states like CA have done what you suggest and are supported by the VP of the US and most of the Democratic party.[0] [0]https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Persons_on_Parole_Amendment_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Ri...
  • estomagordo 6y ago
    Or stop taking them away at any point, including while they serve sentences.
    • La1n 6y ago
      To me this makes most sense, otherwise putting people who would vote for an opponent in jail makes it so you can stay in power.
• FriedrichN 6y ago
  I'm not a US citizen, but to me it seems to be ridiculous to give one person the ability to unilaterally make decisions on the lives of individuals. Not just these pardons, but also the barbaric rushed executions Trump performed. It appears to me to be antithetical to a democracy that claims to have a separation of power.
  • secondcoming 6y ago
    > barbaric rushed executions Source?
    • n4r9 6y ago
      Think they're referring to this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55236260 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55236260
      • secondcoming 6y ago
        Intersting, thanks. Is this not just a coincidence of scheduling though? Or do courts normally schedule executions for presidential transition periods?
        • astrange 6y ago
          We normally don't execute anyone ever. People on the federal death row stay there for decades.
        • zimpenfish 6y ago
          I believe the US Government (as opposed to states) hadn't executed anyone for something like 12 years (covering 3 transition periods) and then in about 3 months, executed 13. It's definitely not scheduling.
          • secondcoming 6y ago
            Right ok, But what I'm trying to find out is if these execution dates were set when the people were found guilty, or if someone just decided the execution dates recently.
• hulitu 6y ago
  > So when we do get rid of presidential pardons? This sholdn't happen to a dog say dogs. > We've seen "an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president." ~Mitt Romney It's good to have friends. > And we've seen pardons put up for sale.[0] Free market at work. > Is the US a nation of laws and due process or a Banana Republic where anyone can be acquitted of anything? Taken into account that it uses it's military and secret service to promote a certain fruit company i will say the later is correct. > [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons...
• t-writescode 6y ago
  These aren't problems with the power, they're problems with people that abuse the power. We've had presidential pardons for centuries, and they are both a carry-over from the time of kings, and they could arguably serve as a short-circuit against injustice at the hand of the legislature. Not everything illegal is wrong. Not everyone in prison is serving a just sentence, no matter what the legal system declares it to be. Left in the hands of the legislature, no one would ever experience mercy.
  • user-the-name 6y ago
    After the last 4 years, maybe it is time to realise that a working democracy can not rely on the assumption that those in power will just use their powers responsibly and honourably, and that "checks and balances" need to actually have the ability to both check and balance.
    • Loughla 6y ago
      If Trump taught this country anything, I hope that it is 'relying on long-standing norms of the office is a bad idea'. I think we need legislation to make sure the 'norms' are 'required'.
      • user-the-name 6y ago
        Exactly. It should also be a good example of the fact that the president of the US has an extremely and unusually large amount of power, which should probably be reduced by quite a lot.
  • jfk13 6y ago
    If the argument here is essentially that we should trust the president to know better than the legislature and courts, why don't we just go with absolute dictatorship for all purposes?
    • dragonwriter 6y ago
      The power the President is entrusted with here is solely to remit punishment. The idea is that this is an area where going overboard is less harmful than the alternative.
• jonathanstrange 6y ago
  I think it's very good that you have them, so at least a select few people can get a second chance. Instead, you should get rid of ridiculous penalty stacking and plea deals, an often obviously unjust justice system, and a penal system that systematically violates the most basic human rights and standards of decency. No offence, but most of these pardons make perfect sense. Unfortunately, Snowden, Ulbricht, and Assange were left out.
  • ric2b 6y ago
    But do they have to depend on a single person? They should go through congressional approval to avoid such blatant corruption.
• koolba 6y ago
  Pardons by the executive branch are a weapon of peace. It exists to allow the chief executive, whether the President or a Governor of a State, to settle any matter in their jurisdiction. At the Presidential level, the power is absolute because the founders believed in the executive branch being centralized in a single individual, the President. Outside of Senate confirmation, there isn't much that limits the powers of the President and it's like that on purpose. The people get to have their say every four years.
  • fumblebee 6y ago
    Courts check presidential power all the time. A blatant abuse of the authority to pardon should be met with swift checks to limit that power.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    Exactly - it's notable that the power of pardon is the tail end of the clause that give the president power over the military - that's not random phrasing. > 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 Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/clause-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2...
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• getlawgdon 6y ago
  I'm not sure we should get rid of them because a corrupt sociopath misused the power. We should have gotten rid of the sociopath far sooner however.
• paul_f 6y ago
  Did you read the article? Are you opposed to the pardon of Davidson? President Trump commuted the sentence of Jaime A. Davidson. This commutation is supported by Mr. Davidson’s family and friends, Alice Johnson, and numerous others. In 1993, Mr. Davidson was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in relation to the murder of an undercover officer. Notably, witnesses who testified against Mr. Davidson later recanted their testimony in sworn affidavits and further attested that Mr. Davidson had no involvement. Although Mr. Davidson has been incarcerated for nearly 29 years, the admitted shooter has already been released from prison.
  • rsynnott 6y ago
    That speaks to a broken justice system; that conviction should be overturned by a court.
    • least 6y ago
      It speaks to the inherent flaws in any justice system. Presidential pardons are just one check against that. This lies squarely in line with what a presidential pardon is intended for.
      • rsynnott 6y ago
        A few people saved largely at random from a broken justice system is no sort of real solution; if anything it may actually make things _worse_, as it acts as an escape valve for sufficiently scandalous cases.
        • least 6y ago
          In some cases it can be used to broadly pardon people due to injustice. Carter blanket pardoned all Draft dodgers [1]. It doesn't have to be a "real solution" as that isn't the duty of the president to create law, which falls squarely in the hands of congress. It doesn't make things worse. The only reason people think it makes things worse is because it at times serves to emancipate people they think are undeserving of it. This is a small price to pay for what broadly serves as a useful tool for justice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483
• rsynnott 6y ago
  It's arguably a bit of a historical oddity that the US has them at all. In most countries, particularly former British colonies, a pardon power of some sort exists, but in developed ones it's typically not, de facto, wielded by an individual (in the UK, for instance, it's theoretically wielded by the Home Secretary, but in practice a Home Secretary who used it unilaterally would find themselves immediately looking for a new job, and the norm is that it's barely used at all). The UK used it a lot more at the time that the US became independent, which may be where the US got it from. I don't think _any_ developed democratic country has a pardon power as unrestrained as the US one (even in countries with executive presidencies it's usually constrained in some way).
• bobby_bob 6y ago
  There is considerable variation in how pardons are applied around the world. Many with simple checks and balances: - Require nomination or agreement by the AG. - Prohibit pardoning of political crimes or other self-interest. - Require approval by at least on other minister, or the whole cabinet, or some portion of the legislative body. - Require a published request for pardon, justification of the pardon, and the judiciary's comment about this justification. - Prohibited during lame duck or caretaker periods. - Allow commutations only. - Allow pardons only when someone is actually serving their sentence. - Eliminate mandatory sentences, allows judges to exercise mercy in sentencing.