NationStates Jolt Archive

The Magna Carta, written hundreds of years ago, stated that every individual is equally accountable and protected by the law. That is clearly not the case anymore. Whether you a friend of Clinton, or a friend of Bush, if you are a criminal, you will not go to jail.

Well, there has to be ways to make sure that outstanding peoples who deserve human compassion get what they deserve. However, the amount of power in pardoning people should not reside in an individual who is not already brainwashed to the point of obsessive government compliance.

No, because it allows the president to act above the law (much like the king before the Magna Carta). What it does is allow the president to reward his supporters by clearing them of criminal charges, regardless of how terrible they are and is nothing but another avenue of corruption.

Well, I am not sure if our system of justice has adequate ways of allowing the reformed to become free despite crimes. If we can save some outstanding lives from a punishment that is not required then it is a good thing so long as it is controlled.

US never adopted the Magna Carta to my knowledge. The first document of our current government, the Constitution, allows the President to pardon criminals.

US never adopted the Magna Carta to my knowledge. The first document of our current government, the Constitution, allows the President to pardon criminals.
LOL. "US never adopted the Magna Carta."

We didn't. But it was the inspiration and basis for all modern goverments, including the Constitution. Are you insinuating that the U.S. DOES NOT have equal protection under the law?

And why do you seem to believe that the Constitution cannot be changed, because the Founding Fathers were flawless, infallible, God-like men, whose political writings should be interpreted as if they were the Bible?

This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue, because both Democrats and Republicans have pardoned criminals for being friends.

So, I'm the only one who voted yes? Then I should explain...

The public would be outraged if a politician pardoned a criminal that people knew to be guilty. And this process allows people found guilty of bogus crimes to be free (such as refusing to answer a question while under oath in trial, because a good reason, which the law doesn't take into account).

So, I'm the only one who voted yes? Then I should explain...

The public would be outraged if a politician pardoned a criminal that people knew to be guilty. And this process allows people found guilty of bogus crimes to be free (such as refusing to answer a question while under oath in trial, because a good reason, which the law doesn't take into account).
The public was outraged when Nixon was pardoned, whom everyone knew was guilty. But it didn't change a damn thing.

The Magna Carta, written hundreds of years ago, stated that every individual is equally accountable and protected by the law. That is clearly not the case anymore. Whether you a friend of Clinton, or a friend of Bush, if you are a criminal, you will not go to jail.
It's that same law that allows governor's to pardon people on death row or commute sentences. I think it should only be used for prisoners already in jail for extended periods of time and only by elected politicians, namely heads of state or government (national or regional).

US never adopted the Magna Carta to my knowledge. The first document of our current government, the Constitution, allows the President to pardon criminals.
Should Criminals be able to pardon politicians?


No one ever adopted Magna Carta.

we wrote the damn thing!

I wonder if they can pardon themselves? :D

LOL. "US never adopted the Magna Carta."

We didn't. But it was the inspiration and basis for all modern goverments, including the Constitution. Are you insinuating that the U.S. DOES NOT have equal protection under the law?

And why do you seem to believe that the Constitution cannot be changed, because the Founding Fathers were flawless, infallible, God-like men, whose political writings should be interpreted as if they were the Bible?

This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue, because both Democrats and Republicans have pardoned criminals for being friends.

Absurd.

Are you arguing the Magna Carta overrides the Constitution?

As the pardon power is part of law, all people are still equal under the law.

The pardon is rarely, if ever, used in the back-slapping way you suggest.

Instead, it plays an important role in seeing that justice and mercy are part of our system.

Do you realize that several members of the current Supreme Court think that innocence is not a grounds for appeal? That a truly innocent person -- able to prove his/her innocence -- could be excecuted because that is not sufficient grounds for a writ of habeas corpus? In part, they argue that is the role of the pardons.

Pardons are necessary because the innocent or the redeemed or the overpunished need a last resort.

Absurd.

<snip>

The pardon is rarely, if ever, used in the back-slapping way you suggest.

Instead, it plays an important role in seeing that justice and mercy are part of our system.

<snip>

Pardons are necessary because the innocent or the redeemed or the overpunished need a last resort.

I agree with you, but a common, and possibly not unreasonable perception, is that Presidential pardons are abused for political purposes. Or that they are open to abuse of any sort and that we trust in the integrity of the President to use this power wisely. I think the integrity issue is ultimately the sticking point when the pardon issue is debated - should an elected official be given this much power without checks?

Unfortunately I can see no alternative to the way the system is designed; amending the Constitution is politically impossible in this case, and the need to protect innocents overrides danger from abuse.

"Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." A reprieve reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt.

As judicially interpreted, the president's power to grant reprieves and pardons is absolute. Individual reprieves and pardons cannot be blocked by Congress or the courts. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the pardon power has having a narrow purpose in times of war and rebellion. The president might offer pardons to rebellious factions as an inducement for a laying down of arms and national reconciliation. Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 74) that "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the common wealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall."

The pardon power has been used as the Framers foresaw: George Washington pardoned leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, and Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers following the Civil War. In 20th century, Jimmy Carter pardoned those who had evaded service in the Vietnam War.

But a long succession of presidents has used the pardon power much more broadly. Bill Clinton is but the latest president to use the pardon power to forgive a wide range of criminal offenses.

Many pardons have been controversial. Perhaps the most controversial was Gerald Ford's preemptive 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon for his actions in the Watergate Affair. More recently, George Bush's 1992 pardons of six Reagan administration officials involved in the Iran-Contra Affair, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, generated considerable negative comment.

The Clinton Pardons
Bill Clinton granted 395 pardons during his presidency, comparable in number to other recent presidents. However, of that total 140 were issued on his final day in office. His final day pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had fled the country on tax evasion charges, immediately erupted in controversy. There were charges that emissaries of Rich had used personal influence and campaign contributions to win the pardon. Similar charges soon arose regarding other final day pardons, prompting calls for congressional hearings and action by federal prosecutors."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:inP4YnTquYgJ:www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/pardon.html+presidential+pardons+clinton&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The public was outraged when Nixon was pardoned, whom everyone knew was guilty. But it didn't change a damn thing.

There's no evidence that directly links Nixon to Watergate, and by that that means that not everyone thinks he was guilty (mainly Conservatives maintain that view). But I will not debate that here. ;)

The Magna Carta, written hundreds of years ago, stated that every individual is equally accountable and protected by the law. That is clearly not the case anymore. Whether you a friend of Clinton, or a friend of Bush, if you are a criminal, you will not go to jail.
The power of a president, or governor for that matter, to reduce the severity of punishment or even wipe the slate clean is a check against the imperfect power of the judiciary.

For instance, in the case of Justice Scalia, he's said that people shouldn't be awarded a new trial based on new evidence that exhonerated them no matter, how compelling. All that matters is whether their first trial was fare, not whether they're actually guilty. A person's only recourse in that case is convincing the powers that be a pardon is warrented.

The Constitution isn't a set of perfect rules for a perfect world. It a set of rules for making a greatly imperfect world run be equally imperfect men, better.

The legislature should not involve itself in the legal precedure of carrying out the law, that should be left to the judiciary

The legislature should not involve itself in the legal precedure of carrying out the law, that should be left to the judiciary

Here it is the Executive Branch that has the power to pardon. And it is part of the checks and balances that it has that power.

There are other reasons for the power I aand others have already discussed.

(I frankly don't know about pardons in the UK.)

If the Executive branch does not have the power to pardon, then the Executive branch loses one of its checks over the judicial branch.

Here it is the Executive Branch that has the power to pardon. And it is part of the checks and balances that it has that power.

There are other reasons for the power I aand others have already discussed.

(I frankly don't know about pardons in the UK.)

Well the executive shouldn't mess with the judiciary either really

Here it is the Executive Branch that has the power to pardon. And it is part of the checks and balances that it has that power.

There are other reasons for the power I aand others have already discussed.

(I frankly don't know about pardons in the UK.)

Well the executive shouldn't mess with the judiciary either really

Edit: we don't really have pardons in the same way in the UK as far as I know

If the Executive branch does not have the power to pardon, then the Executive branch loses one of its checks over the judicial branch.

In America doesn't the executive apoint judges?

In America doesn't the executive apoint judges?

No. It varies depending on jurisdiction. A lot of judges are actually elected by the people.

No. It varies depending on jurisdiction. A lot of judges are actually elected by the people.

Thanks for the info. Here its the Government

Well the executive shouldn't mess with the judiciary either really

Edit: we don't really have pardons in the same way in the UK as far as I know

We do. The monarch has an absolute power of pardon, but this is almost never used.

The problem is the frequency with which the POTUS intervenes in the justice system of the USA. Nearly two a week is too much (bssed on the almost 400 figure for Clinton.)

As such it would make more sense to me if the head of state were to have the power of pardon only when this pardon is confirmed by the legislative body.

i.e checks and balances oin the checks and balances.

And then the supreme court must decide on the Legislature and then the President must decide on the court...

We do. The monarch has an absolute power of pardon, but this is almost never used.

The problem is the frequency with which the POTUS intervenes in the justice system of the USA. Nearly two a week is too much (bssed on the almost 400 figure for Clinton.)

As such it would make more sense to me if the head of state were to have the power of pardon only when this pardon is confirmed by the legislative body.

i.e checks and balances oin the checks and balances.

I couldn't tell you the last time that was used but I reckon it hasn't been used in 50 years

The public was outraged when Nixon was pardoned, whom everyone knew was guilty. But it didn't change a damn thing.

Not having been alive at the time, I don't know how outraged the public really was at Nixon's Pardon, but I do know that Nixon was a great president. Yeah, he lied, but he lied to cover up a break in, so that he could stay in office, and continue to do what he was doing for the state of the world. We still don't really know why the break in happened, and, let's face it, all politicians lie. Nixon is hardly the worst. Let's see, just in recent history, we have JFK, who was a liar and an adulterer, and slept with a russian intelligence officer. On multiple occasions. In the white house. And now people think he's great cuz he got shot. Ooh, and Bill Clinton, another liar and adulterer, who couldn't handle any of the police actions the United States took while he was in office, because he was too concerned with public approval ratings to send ground forces, and didn't do anything about Saddam when something should have been done about it, who is now remembered as a great president because the economy was great while he was in office.

And on the other end of the spectrum, we have nixon, who was working for world peace, brought the troops home from a war that we were losing and the public was uninterested in fighting, and never would have allowed for the later cambodian genocide, who is despised, because he lied. He lied for peace, so people hate him.

This is one of the many times that a president oversteps his boundaries. I am against the spoils system and I am against this. The president should stay out of the judiciary.
As for past presidents, Kennedy may have slept with a Russian Intelligence officer and that showed a conflict of interests. It is stupid how well he is remembered but I see no problem with his having other mistresses. He was overall a good man and could have taken American politics in a new fresh direction but instead we got Johnson. Clinton's sexual relation did not affect the fact that he was a good president when it came to the economy. i'm only offernded that he lied about it. Nixon was not a good president and I don't know why anyone would say that. You might as well say Stalin was a great president. Both curbed their people's freedoms in the name of safety and spied on their own people. As for Bush, this post is too long already.

Not having been alive at the time, I don't know how outraged the public really was at Nixon's Pardon, but I do know that Nixon was a great president. Yeah, he lied, but he lied to cover up a break in, so that he could stay in office, and continue to do what he was doing for the state of the world. We still don't really know why the break in happened, and, let's face it, all politicians lie. Nixon is hardly the worst. Let's see, just in recent history, we have JFK, who was a liar and an adulterer, and slept with a russian intelligence officer. On multiple occasions. In the white house. And now people think he's great cuz he got shot. Ooh, and Bill Clinton, another liar and adulterer, who couldn't handle any of the police actions the United States took while he was in office, because he was too concerned with public approval ratings to send ground forces, and didn't do anything about Saddam when something should have been done about it, who is now remembered as a great president because the economy was great while he was in office.

And on the other end of the spectrum, we have nixon, who was working for world peace, brought the troops home from a war that we were losing and the public was uninterested in fighting, and never would have allowed for the later cambodian genocide, who is despised, because he lied. He lied for peace, so people hate him.
Clinton handled Kosovo and his little Iraq pay-back far better that Bush has handled anything involving the military. Somalia was something he inherited, and that Americans didn't understand, so he pulled US forces out and left the idiots who live there to starve under their tyrants.

Nixon lied for power. Clinton lied over a cum stain. Bush lied for his idea of legacy, and over coming his father. Kennedy you could make a case that he lied for peace. But it doesn't matter, he did put a man on the moon, a feat which no other nation has achieved even nearly four decades later. He also guided our nation through the Cuban Missle Crisis, which had far more to do with the end of the cold war that anything Reagan did (and Nixon should get props for his role in the Soviet collapse too, but also blame for the China that exists today).