Presidential Pardon

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

For those of you unaware of the way the U.S government works, the President is granted the ability to pardon any felon he wishes. Any. At all. So, to be short and to the point; is it a good idea? Can we support it when a president uses it to free a buddy of his convicted of perjury? Can we support it when a president frees over a hundred convicted men on one day, hoping that the sheer number will hide the fact that one of them serves as a conflict of interest to the president? Can we support a system that blatantly allows a President to pardon the illegal actions of an ex-president, whilst the people who show legitimate atonement for their crimes they comitted for the L.A Gang they founded get fried?

Thought, comments, you know the drill.

[fahrenheit]

political suicide

even today gerald ford is mostly known for pardoning nixon.

[Me-Patch]

At 9/2/07 02:51 AM, fahrenheit wrote: political suicide

Thats why they do it right before they leave office.

[fahrenheit]

At 9/2/07 03:10 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Thats why they do it right before they leave office.

like who?

[MattZone]

At 9/2/07 03:17 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 9/2/07 03:10 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Thats why they do it right before they leave office.

like who?

In reverse order... Clinton, Bush #1, Reagan, Carter, Ford,... need I continue?

It's actually pretty common.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/2/07 03:17 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 9/2/07 03:10 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Thats why they do it right before they leave office.

like who?

Like, every President ever...

[fahrenheit]

At 9/2/07 03:41 AM, MattZone wrote: It's actually pretty common.

hmm, i guess much more common then i knew about

[MortifiedPenguins]

The original thought was that it would be a balance of power between the legislative branch and the executive.

I mean, our government was going to have a pardon power somewhere in it, as most western countries and governments did. Thats just how things were back then.

The thought to imbide the power, to quote Hamilton on this one, "that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever."

Hamilton as a whole puts up many good arguments for the power of the Pardon to be imposed onto the executive, branch: Speed and time needed, less chance of treason, sedition and corruption to impose thier will on the representive bodies of our government, and the ability to end certain conflicts faster.

http://federalistpapers.com/federalist74 .html

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/2/07 04:04 AM, fahrenheit wrote:

hmm, i guess much more common then i knew about

Yup. I Practically every president of the last 50 years has had some sort of shady pardon done.

[a2toedmonkey]

I'm not a big fan of the presidential pardon, it seems like a big pile of.....
It seems that it was once used because presidents were all very fine, intelligent, and respected individuals, who would never abuse this power, while now they are just winners of some big popularity contest; basically, in the here and now, presidents will use this power for very personal reasons.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

If someone has been found guilty under the court of law then why should they be pardoned? If new evidence comes to light that they didn't do it, then they can have a re-trial. why should we let the guilty go free?

I can see the logic behind having the President having the power of pardon, but it just doesn't work unless their is a further check on it. But if you're going to put another check on it you might as well get rid of it entirely.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/3/07 05:20 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: If someone has been found guilty under the court of law then why should they be pardoned? If new evidence comes to light that they didn't do it, then they can have a re-trial. why should we let the guilty go free?

You can't retry a person for the same crime twice.

I can see the logic behind having the President having the power of pardon, but it just doesn't work unless their is a further check on it. But if you're going to put another check on it you might as well get rid of it entirely.

The power of the pardon has been fully vested into Western Law and Government as a whole that it would be almost impossible to get rid of it.

And like I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Pardon is a check on the power of the legislation, much like impeachment is in Congress.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 9/3/07 08:07 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You can't retry a person for the same crime twice.

The likelihood that new evidence would come up, the person in question still being found guilty and THEN even more evidence turning up is so slim that it's barely even worth being considered. If vital evidence were over looked twice in the same case then the person in question would have a very real case to take to the supreme court which would in all honesty likely rule in favour of them unless its filled with idiots.

The pardon system itself MAY still have uses, though it can be got rid of entirely by just allowing re-trials if they are neccessary without limitations to the number that can he held.

It should not be up to the Head of State who should serve what sentence. That is the job of the judiciary, therefore if there must be a power of pardon it should belong to the judiciary and no one else seeing as they are the ones who actually know what they are doing and have experience in the field.

The power of the pardon has been fully vested into Western Law and Government as a whole that it would be almost impossible to get rid of it.

If you can't get rid of it then you change it and give it to people who know what they are doing...say the most senior judicial officials in the country?

And like I mentioned earlier, the Presidential Pardon is a check on the power of the legislation, much like impeachment is in Congress.

Power to check on legislation? I could see it being a check on the judiciary how does it check against the legislation or the legislature?

[Britkid]

Excuse my Englishness, but if there's already been an independent trial where at the verdict was guilty, then why should the President be allowed to overturn this verdict? Again, this might be a culture thing, but that sounds like the government interefering with the judiciary, which is totally undemocratic.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/3/07 08:24 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 9/3/07 08:07 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The pardon system itself MAY still have uses, though it can be got rid of entirely by just allowing re-trials if they are neccessary without limitations to the number that can he held.

You remember that we have a Double Jeapoardy clause in our Constitution, right?

If you can't get rid of it then you change it and give it to people who know what they are doing...say the most senior judicial officials in the country?

Because the most Senior Judicial officials in the country already have a lifetime term in office and already have the ability to decide the constitutionality of enacted legislation, giving them even more power would upset our government balance.
I put a link around here to the Federalist 74 paper around, and it gives good points about why it should be invested into the office of one good and natured man to overide the complexities of and to promote speed and the need of it's use.
You should ckeck it out.

Power to check on legislation? I could see it being a check on the judiciary how does it check against the legislation or the legislature?

The legislature(Congres) makes the laws in our country. Now, if this legislature enacted laws that were later found unconstitutional, were overly agressive or whatever and were overturned; any people that were found guilty of them are still guilty to them. A pardon would clear them out.

Much like how Washington pardoned the Whisky Rebbellion membes, or how Johnson pardoned many of the Civil War vets when we went through our civil war when our overzealus Republican congress wanted blood.

You have to remember, each power designate to our government is one which limits power from other parts of our government.

[Ragnarocks245]

Wow, thats stupid, i never even knew about that lol.

[Buffalow]

Because he can. There, now can we move on with our live?

[troubles1]

At 9/2/07 02:19 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Can we support a system that blatantly allows a President to pardon the illegal actions of an ex-president, whilst the people who show legitimate atonement for their crimes they comitted for the L.A Gang they founded get fried?

Thought, comments, you know the drill.

So you think that pergry, and Murderer are on the same level? especially in the case you are probably referring to TUCKEY Williams, Who because of his actions many children have lost there lives? innocent, by standard, , or the countless overdosed by drugs sold to there own people?

he might have been nominated for a Nobel peace prise, but he did not deserve it.
;
And to answer your question, YES I support that system, and I completely support our President.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/4/07 08:48 PM, troubles1 wrote:

So you think that pergry, and Murderer are on the same level?

A president isn't supposed to pardon do to the offenders crime. Perjery not being on par is why perjury get's a lower sentence then murder; excusing all non-murder crimes is retarded.

especially in the case you are probably referring to TUCKEY Williams, Who because of his actions many children have lost there lives? innocent, by standard, , or the countless overdosed by drugs sold to there own people?

Yes, and then he went to prison, at which point he stopped risking anyones life. Then he went against gang violence, meaning that he started actively SAVING lives, which is when the government killed him. Great.

he might have been nominated for a Nobel peace prise, but he did not deserve it.

He took lives, then he saved lives. I consider him neutral.

And to answer your question, YES I support that system, and I completely support our President.

Ah. So you support presidents pardoning close personal friends for no reason? You support a morally bankrupt asshole pardoning a man because said mans wife gave loads of money to the presidents interests?

Yay corruption!

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 9/4/07 11:19 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/4/07 08:48 PM, troubles1 wrote:

Yes, and then he went to prison, at which point he stopped risking anyones life. Then he went against gang violence, meaning that he started actively SAVING lives, which is when the government killed him. Great.

Regardless of what the person does after he is sentenced for prior is of no concern to the ennaction of the law or the suspension of it.
So what, he wrote children's books behind jail. Good he helped to redeem himself before God. Regardless to that, he was still sentenced prior to his new found goodness and must still abide by it's rulings.

And from what I can tell from your posts, you seem to be adding your dislike for the President into the dislike of the office and the powers to it, which is never an advisable prospect.

[Gunter45]

At 9/3/07 08:26 AM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: Again, this might be a culture thing, but that sounds like the government interefering with the judiciary, which is totally undemocratic.

Checks and balances. It's in Federalist Paper 10, I think, but it might be 78. Either way, it's been a long time since I've read the Federalist Papers and I'm tired, but it's in one of them. Anyway, Madison states that in order to preserve the balance of power, there needs to be overlap of power. The President also has the power of veto; that interferes with the legislature, but it allows him to keep the legislature from encroaching on executive power. One instance in which overlap of power saved a branch of the government from being rendered impotent was in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where the Supreme Court assumed the ability to determine the Constitutionality of laws. That's an encroachment on the legislature, but, where it not for that case, the judiciary would be at the mercy of the legislative branch.

Also, if a President were to ever go beyond reasonable bounds with his power to pardon, he would get hammered with an abuse of power charge, impeached, and then removed from office if he didn't resign before it came to that.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 9/4/07 11:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Regardless of what the person does after he is sentenced for prior is of no concern to the ennaction of the law or the suspension of it.
So what, he wrote children's books behind jail. Good he helped to redeem himself before God. Regardless to that, he was still sentenced prior to his new found goodness and must still abide by it's rulings.

Actually, that's not true; appeals have full legal authority to remove someone from the death sentence to life. Secondly, he was actively saving lives when he was executed. Due to his death, innocent people will die. Is revenging murder worth it if you have to kill people yourself to get it? Imagine if Joe death row patient knew a cure to AIDS, and every week cured 1 person. You can guarentee he wouldn't be executed. Yet since Williams was passively saving lifes, they go ahead and execute him.

And from what I can tell from your posts, you seem to be adding your dislike for the President into the dislike of the office and the powers to it, which is never an advisable prospect.

Why not? I dislike the actions of various presidents. Said actions are a result of a bullshit ability granted to the office that virtually promises corruption. If a new rule gave Congressmen a liscense to kill for fun, and then a bunch of congressmen went on a killing spree, it would be reasonable to equate my hatred for those congressmen to a hatred for the congresses right to kill.