http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1060.story 1 guy for cutting coins, and the other 8 for cocaine??
Does anyone have any insight as to what our forefathers were thinking when they decided to give the President such absolute power? Any sitting President could with the stroke of a pen pardon everyone who has ever committed any federal crime, even posthumously or preemptively, and there isn't a thing anyone can do about it. Seems like a somewhat out of balance power to me.
What if Congrees made something illegal unconstitutionally and the SCOTUS was unwilling to strike it down. At that point, the president could just pardon everyone accused of it. Also, if "We the People" don't agree with the president's pardon decision we could refuse to elect the president again or take it out on his/her party in the next election.
Both true, but in the case of the latter kind of like closing the barn door after the horses are out. Example - With the stroke of the pen the President could pardon all illegal aliens that are in the country, similar to the amnesty President Carter extended to draft dodgers in the '70's. Just seems like an extraordinary power, not suggesting that we should amend the Constitution to eliminate it or anything, just curious as to the rationale behind it, especially considering the scope of it.
Roxane Kay Hettinger [/quote] One of my grandfathers was convicted of that in 1994 and served fifteen years.
Because more freedom is a good thing. I'd rather 1,000 guilty people go free that one innocent person be locked up or worse. A pardon can only be used to increase your freedoms -- not take them away. In that sense, I wouldn't put it in the same category as other government actions which can only take away freedoms. IMO, the "power" to pardon is a good one and is undeserving of the negative connotation of other government "powers".
I agree. I've actually had conversations with folks who believe exactly the opposite. (would rather an innocent person go to prison than a guilty person go free)
I've had that conversation too. More disturbingly, people make similar statements about killing people: "Kill em all and let god sort em out", etc. I can't imagine being ok with that type of wanton killing, but I imagine there typically isn't much thought behind such statements. To answer your original question, I think the "power" of the pardon was seen as a good one because it errs on the side freedom. I very much agree. Especially these days, when you consider that just about everything is a felony (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Da ... 1594032556) and if you are convicted of a felony you lose your right to ever posses a gun FOR LIFE. A pardon is the only way to have that right re-instated. At least in practical terms, that is. I think there are some other legal pathways to restoring firearms rights but they aren't available right now.
Reading up a little on this subject I was surprised to learn, contrary to what I have always thought, that a pardon does not erase the record of the conviction. For example, if you were applying for a position that required a background check and was asked the "have you ever been convicted..." question, technically you would need to answer, "yes, but I have been pardoned" because the original conviction is still on record. I guess that is where "expunged" comes into play maybe?
I think you can only expunge arrests, not convictions. Apparently there are two types of pardons, and one erases your record whereas one does not. Thanks google.