Are Pardons Used Correctly? Presidential pardons were established as a law in the Constitution by the founding fathers of our nation. Its main objective is to provide a chance to correct judicial errors, however throughout history, pardons are often used for political reasons or personal connections. Therefore, whether presidential pardons should be a power granted to the presidents is a topic debated very frequently. With just one letter and signature from the current president, a person could be granted a “get out of jail card” and be immune to any charges put against him/her. Presidential pardons allow the President alone to make the decision to free a particular person from criminal charges and sentences, even though there might have been substantial evidence that the person has indeed committed the crime and might cause danger in the future. Historically, there have been many cases of controversial pardons. Therefore, given the immense power of this presidential privilege and the challenge to exercise this power with justice and fairness, we argue that the right to pardon should not be granted to the presidents.
"Nobody's questioning that the president had the power to pardon whomever he wanted to. What we're trying to find out is why. ... This editorial does not explain it. ... If there was no quid pro quo, then it was just bad judgment and the president didn't do his job properly."
-- Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, on CBS' "Face the Nation. |
"As for the misuse of pardons, that is certainly true. It is also true that other powers are misused by Presidents, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. In a system of checks and balances, those misuses would be corrected in time. Sadly to say, those checks and balances seem to be growing weaker."
-- Louis Fisher, Constitutional scholar. |