Democracy Vs The Presidential Pardon

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Should George be allowed to pardon all those who might be considered to have done his dirty work?

What does this mean for the universal theory of democracy if perceived political pragmatism can ride roughshod over human rights?
 

1BiGG1

Sexy Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Posts
1,942
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
123
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
So far he’s only done half of what Clinton and others did. The really interesting thing will be preemptive pardons that are expected protecting some form being prosecuted in the first place.

I don’t obviously agree with all pardons but we are known for one party doing witch hunts on the other
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
So far he’s only done half of what Clinton and others did. The really interesting thing will be preemptive pardons that are expected protecting some form being prosecuted in the first place.

I don’t obviously agree with all pardons but we are known for one party doing witch hunts on the other

When you revert to the argument that they do it so we will do it, all you are saying is that our system is fundamentally corrupt and we have no right to lecture the rest of the world about democracy.

Nor does anyone else for that matter who might behave in the same manner.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Should George be allowed to pardon all those who might be considered to have done his dirty work?
My gut instinct is to say, "of course not." However, I'm pretty sure every past has done the same thing. The difference is G.W. Bush and his cronies have committed some frightfully heinous acts. The search for WMD's does not begin to comapre with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.


What does this mean for the universal theory of democracy if perceived political pragmatism can ride roughshod over human rights?
There are some that believe the United States is no longer a democracy but a republic. Therefore the universal theory of democracy does not apply.

What human rights? They're prisoners, many for good reason. I disagree with the pre-emptive pardon for people yet to be convicted. If Obama wants to pardon them in 8 years so be it. :biggrin1: A pre-emptive pardon is like a get out of jail free card. This is the real world not Monopoly.

FWIW: As of November 24, 2008,[1] President George W. Bush had issued 171 presidential pardons to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of eight people.[1][2][3]

According to Wikipedia: As President Bill Clinton used his power under the U.S. Constitution to grant pardons and clemency to 456 people, thus commuting the sentences of those already convicted of a crime, and obviating a trial for those not yet convicted. On January 20, 2001, he pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency[2].

A pardon means an executive order vacating a conviction. As a result, their criminal record on this particular incident is now "clean", the social stigma of having been convicted of a crime is removed, and there are no future legal implications regarding the prohibition of some activities which may have created by the now-pardoned conviction e.g. being unable to legally possess a handgun.

A commutation means a mitigation of the sentence of someone currently serving a sentence for a crime pursuant to a conviction, without vacating the conviction itself. As a result, the fact that they have been convicted of a crime remains on the person's criminal record. The existence of this conviction may have future implications e.g. restricting/prohibiting some activities or being automatically disqualified from applying for certain jobs.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,789
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
So far he’s only done half of what Clinton and others did. The really interesting thing will be preemptive pardons that are expected protecting some form being prosecuted in the first place.

I don’t obviously agree with all pardons but we are known for one party doing witch hunts on the other

Except, Clinton did not commute the sentence of a member of HIS administration accused of obstruction of justice...


Its not about witch hunts... its about whether a criminal, once elected president, can commit or endorse others to commit any amount or class of crime... and simply get off scot free by pardoning himself and his henchmen.

Regardless of who is in office, power corrupts. And power without accountability is the most corrupting of all.

The pardon of Nixon set a dangerous precedent... the idea that a president should not be prosecuted for crimes in office....

And certainly part of the reason we are in this fix today was the total unwillingness of republicans in power to investigate or question a republican president.

I think we should amend the constitution... the ONE group of people the president should not be allowed to pardon is any member of his OWN administration.
Let the incoming president determine if a former flunky ought to be let off the hook...


But for a president to be able to pardon ANY person who works for him is to invite the president to solicit criminal activity.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,672
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
There are some that believe the United States is no longer a democracy but a republic. Therefore the universal theory of democracy does not apply.
I got news for you dear, The United States has always been a republic. Remember the Pledge that they made you say every morning in school?- "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands..

There are many forms of government that are democratic. For example, Canada is a constitutional monarchy and it's as much a democracy as the U.S.

Anyhow... I don't agree with Presidents granting pardons to convicted criminals. Even more so the pre-emptive pardons for people who have broken the law but may be prosecuted. It's legal, in your face, corruption.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
A pardon means an executive order vacating a conviction. As a result, their criminal record on this particular incident is now "clean", the social stigma of having been convicted of a crime is removed, and there are no future legal implications regarding the prohibition of some activities which may have created by the now-pardoned conviction e.g. being unable to legally possess a handgun.

A commutation means a mitigation of the sentence of someone currently serving a sentence for a crime pursuant to a conviction, without vacating the conviction itself. As a result, the fact that they have been convicted of a crime remains on the person's criminal record. The existence of this conviction may have future implications e.g. restricting/prohibiting some activities or being automatically disqualified from applying for certain jobs.

So is the pardon limitless? Or to just certain crimes?
Could the president pardon serial killer like Jeffrey Dahlmer?
The pardon is limitless, it does not apply only to certain crimes.

Jeffrey Dahmer died in 1994, he was beaten to death by a fellow inmate; but yes, prior to this he could have been pardoned.