Summary on pardons:
Many people who have committed crimes are let out of sentences and punishments that they deserve due to presidential pardons. Although pardons are meant to be used as a means to correct legal mistakes, there have been many cases of pardons that are highly questionable. To say the least, unjustified pardons mean that the offenders might not learn from their mistakes and pay for their actions since the pardon gives them immunity. For the bigger cases like Nixon, the controversial pardons have also caused disparity in our society and left a deeper and wider impact on our country. There was a lot of evidence against Nixon, but because of his pardon, he was immune to any criminal charges when everyone else involved got sentences and fines. This was not only unfair to Nixon’s peers, but was also sending the wrong message to people in the country that his status and connection got him free. To this date, Nixon’s pardon has been a much debated political incident. These questionable pardons outweigh those justified cases, raising doubt about the utility of pardons in today's society.
Many cases argue strongly that pardons are sometimes used wrongly in today’s society and could cause harm to others in an indirect way. In conclusion, the right to pardon should not be a power granted to the president because the power to pardon can be used irresponsibly to let certain people out of criminal charges and sentences that they deserve.
Many cases argue strongly that pardons are sometimes used wrongly in today’s society and could cause harm to others in an indirect way. In conclusion, the right to pardon should not be a power granted to the president because the power to pardon can be used irresponsibly to let certain people out of criminal charges and sentences that they deserve.
|
Would you extend or limit
|
"Over the past 30 years, the American public has come to see presidential pardons as a haphazard exercise in mercy at best, and a corrupt flexing of power at worst. We think of Gerald Ford letting Richard Nixon get away with Watergate; Bill Clinton using his last day in office to pardon both his half-brother, Roger, and a wealthy donor’s tax-evading husband; and George W. Bush commuting Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence for leaking the name of a CIA agent and lying about it.
This is not how the pardon power was meant to be used when the founding fathers wrote it into the Constitution. And according to a chorus of critics in the legal world, the fact that Americans now think about it with such skepticism—when they think about it at all—reflects a failure of leadership on the part of our presidents. Used properly, they say, the pardon is a singular tool of governance, one with the power to restore balance to the justice system and put important issues on the national agenda."
-- Leon Neyfakh, in New York Times
aRE PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS USED CORRECTLY
|
|
"The more you seek to cabin the pardon power, the more you make it look and feel like the process of appellate review or a collateral challenge. It becomes more rule like, and to that extent, it provides less of a means to look at the overall case or circumstances of the individual, in a fact-specific manner, to try to achieve some notion of justice. If the purpose of the pardon power is to allow a final check that is not constrained by the stringent rules of the criminal justice system, then it is hard to get the benefit of that without also risking incurring an occasional cost taking the form of a seeming misuse of the pardon power."
-- Max Stearns, Professor of Law; UM Carey School of Law
|
Presidents and Their Pardons: Are They Paying More Attention to Who They Are Giving Them to?
Looking at the charts to the right and left, you can clearly see that the number of pardons given is declining. And the answer is yes. Presidents are finally seeing the public's reaction to pardons and they are now paying more attention to who they are giving pardons to. |
|
|
|
Would you extend or limit the privileges of executives to pardon beyond its current scope? If so, how would you extend or limit this power?
"Typically, there is considerable staff work that precedes the announcement of a presidential pardon. I would make the result of that staff work as transparent as possible. If the president rejects the recommendation of the Justice Department, he or she should be required to publicly announce the reasons for that decision."
-- Eric Easton, Professor of Law |
|