Pardon backfire....

[Marauder06]

People are focusing on things like "first offense" and "non-violent crime," but they forget that the first time someone is caught on something is usually not the first time they did it, and you get bad guys on what you can get them on. Al Capone got put in prison for tax evasion. That's almost as "non-violent" as they come. I wonder why he didn't get pardoned? /rhetorical

 

[Grunt]

People are focusing on things like "first offense" and "non-violent crime," but they forget that the first time someone is caught on something is usually not the first time they did it, and you get bad guys on what you can get them on. Al Capone got put in prison for tax evasion. That's almost as "non-violent" as they come. I wonder why he didn't get pardoned? /rhetorical

In addition, many of their sentences are a result of plea bargaining down -- not only in severity of the initial crime, but also the counts or number of charges.

 

[amlove21]

People are focusing on things like "first offense" and "non-violent crime," but they forget that the first time someone is caught on something is usually not the first time they did it, and you get bad guys on what you can get them on. Al Capone got put in prison for tax evasion. That's almost as "non-violent" as they come. I wonder why he didn't get pardoned? /rhetorical

When you say "people", do you mean the administration that's granting the shorter sentence? And with all the effort it would take to examine the "real truth" (was this the first time they did it, or the first time they got caught? Are they actually bad people? Was the sentence correctly applied), do you think that Presidents should be able to commute sentences at all?

 

[Marauder06]

When you say "people", do you mean the administration that's granting the shorter sentence? And with all the effort it would take to examine the "real truth" (was this the first time they did it, or the first time they got caught? Are they actually bad people? Was the sentence correctly applied), do you think that Presidents should be able to commute sentences at all?

When I say "people" I mean "people," I don't know how to make it clearer than that. People in the administration. People in this thread. People in concerned about justice issues. People.

The judicial system is designed to examine the 'real truth.' It includes appeals processes in case the system got it wrong the first time. And there's always the Supreme Court.

I'm ambivalent about the President's ability to grant pardons and commute sentences. I think it runs counter to the separation of powers and checks and balances in our form of government, but since it's a power specifically granted to the President, I'm OK with it.

The relatively high number of commutations and pardons by President Obama to me smacked of racial pandering more than it did of righting a legitimate wrong.

 

[amlove21]

When I say "people" I mean "people," I don't know how to make it clearer than that. People in the administration. People in this thread. People in concerned about justice issues. People.

The judicial system is designed to examine the 'real truth.' It includes appeals processes in case the system got it wrong the first time. And there's always the Supreme Court.

I'm ambivalent about the President's ability to grant pardons and commute sentences. I think it runs counter to the separation of powers and checks and balances in our form of government, but since it's a power specifically granted to the President, I'm OK with it.

The relatively high number of commutations and pardons by President Obama to me smacked of racial pandering more than it did of righting a legitimate wrong.

I think that's where my thought process is evolving on this one, that's why I was asking whom you meant. I understand now you mean all people.

The more I see commuted sentences and pardons, the less I am sure that it needs to be a presidential power. I don't know the process well enough to guess at how much each president knows about each exact case- but I will go ahead and assume that Pres Obama didn't have intimate knowledge of the 78 pardons and 153 sentence commutations he made in December.

 

[Dienekes]

Until I watched West Wing, this year, I knew jack shit about presidential pardons, and I thought for years that they were an extremely rare occurrence. This is an avenue that can and should have much greater transparency than is already put forth.

I'm ambivalent about the President's ability to grant pardons and commute sentences. I think it runs counter to the separation of powers and checks and balances in our form of government, but since it's a power specifically granted to the President, I'm OK with it.

In reference to this, I agree with you, but for different reasons. In a vast simplification that everyone pretty much knows, the Executive Branch and its constitutional head, the President is there to enforce the law. The courts by extension work to apply the law so that it may be enforced fairly but are restrained in their ability by what laws are currently on the books. So the system works for the majority, but screws a small number harshly. In my opinion, presidential pardons and computations should exist for those extenuating circumstances that were overlooked due to technicalities or mandatory minimums that hinder the ability of judges to expertly and fairly apply the law. In this way, presidential pardons should be used to benevolently fix situations that were screwed by the system and should therefore fall under the purview of the president in application as he is the constitutional head of the executive branch. However, I do believe that the President should be required to provide the reasons for any said pardon not only for transparency purposes but for the purpose of letting the people know what problems there are in the legal system that could be changed as judges are usually constrained from shouting out "hey voters, this law sucks and keeps me from doing my job, tell your congressman".

 

[Marauder06]

If the President is there to enforce the law, then he's not there to interpret or apply it. And that's what's doing with his power to pardon/commute.

Part of the problem with presidential pardon powers is that they can be applied pre-emptively. For example, if he wanted to, President Obama could have pardoned Bowe Bergdahl.

 

[Marauder06]

I think that's where my thought process is evolving on this one, that's why I was asking whom you meant. I understand now you mean all people.

The more I see commuted sentences and pardons, the less I am sure that it needs to be a presidential power. I don't know the process well enough to guess at how much each president knows about each exact case- but I will go ahead and assume that Pres Obama didn't have intimate knowledge of the 78 pardons and 153 sentence commutations he made in December.

Yeah, apparently he holds the record for most use of that power.

Eggleston said Obama has now pardoned a total of 148 people during his presidency and has shortened the sentences of 1,176 people, including 395 serving life sentences.

Nearly 400 people sentenced to life, out on the streets. Typically, one does not get a life sentence for "low-level drug offenses."

 

[Dienekes]

If the President is there to enforce the law, then he's not there to interpret or apply it. And that's what's doing with his power to pardon/commute.

Part of the problem with presidential pardon powers is that they can be applied pre-emptively. For example, if he wanted to, President Obama could have pardoned Bowe Bergdahl.

I meant apply/enforce as interchangeable probably wrongly, but I see your point. I would counter that without explicit direction or highly detailed law, there is a need to interpret a law in order to enforce it which provides a little leeway to the President. Other than because the constitution gives him the power of pardon, what justification is there for a pardon power? I mean because it's in the constitution is a solid reason, but why is it there, what was its intended use, and what is its proper place/usage in present and future society? I'd say the ability to alleviate punishments that are applied unfairly to very small number are a quality present usage and could be improved for the future with a legal reasoning requirement. With respect to pre-emptive pardons, I was unaware that they were an option until later this year, but I believe that's where a transparency requirement with legal reasoning would be beneficial and act to constrain presidents from pardoning someone because it follows their agenda.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

A lot more people wouldn't be so quick to fall on their sword if they weren't going to get the pardon down the road.

I think it should have a court or hearing type recomendations process. Some type of review and recommendations board of sorts. I'm not really sure if one already exists or not. But the POTUS shouldn't just be able to pardon without some significant checks and balances throughout the process.

 

[amlove21]

Yeah, apparently he holds the record for most use of that power.



Nearly 400 people sentenced to life, out on the streets. Typically, one does not get a life sentence for "low-level drug offenses."

And this post is an excellent example of where I have gotten to at this point. Why are we pardoning people again? Why is this a thing?

 

[racing_kitty]

And this post is an excellent example of where I have gotten to at this point. Why are we pardoning people again? Why is this a thing?

My fledgling opinion during the Bush 41 years was that it was an option given to the president to correct a legal wrong, as a check against the judicial, or to give a second chance to the truly penetent. After our 42nd POTUS, I saw it as more of a political favor. None have held office since that have swayed that opinion. I think that has more to do with the degradation of the political class as a whole than as a constitutional mistake.

 

[amlove21]

My fledgling opinion during the Bush 41 years was that it was an option given to the president to correct a legal wrong, as a check against the judicial, or to give a second chance to the truly penetent. After our 42nd POTUS, I saw it as more of a political favor. None have held office since that have swayed that opinion. I think that has more to do with the degradation of the political class as a whole than as a constitutional mistake.

Well put.

 

[Blizzard]

My fledgling opinion during the Bush 41 years was that it was an option given to the president to correct a legal wrong, as a check against the judicial, or to give a second chance to the truly penetent. After our 42nd POTUS, I saw it as more of a political favor. None have held office since that have swayed that opinion. I think that has more to do with the degradation of the political class as a whole than as a constitutional mistake.

Concur. While this privilege is actually written into the Constitution, it seemingly has become yet another example of political fuckery. In the larger scheme of things, there may be more validity to the process than there appears, but perception is often reality and this privilege has a bad image problem.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I wonder how much the Counsel's office spent on any one of these cases. Probably not a lot since they have to fight lawsuits and keep the staff from saying lies under oath by accident on the daily.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Late to this thread, as usual, but here it goes: it has to do with the conspiracy to distribute 5 grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine) and lengthy sentencing of minorities in the federal system. I won't bore anyone with specifics but if you are interested, there are a ton of peer reviewed works out there.

Now lets ask ourselves why Rod Blagojevich is still serving 14 years in a BOP facility. Oh wait, who was the last president...

 

[Gunz]

I thought this thread was about farts.