Hacker News Reader

Comment by reducesuffering | Hacker News Reader

So when we do get rid of presidential pardons?

We've seen "an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president." ~Mitt Romney

And we've seen pardons put up for sale.[0]

Is the US a nation of laws and due process or a Banana Republic where anyone can be acquitted of anything?

[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons...

View on HN

> So when we do get rid of presidential pardons?

Not an American, but I just learned a few days ago that a good deal of presidential pardons are used to give citizenship rights back to people who have already served their sentence - sometimes decades ago.

After the pardon they can actually vote and hold public office.

Maybe you should, you know, stop taking away people's rights after they're served their court-appointed sentence?

That's a separate issue. Some states like CA have done what you suggest and are supported by the VP of the US and most of the Democratic party.[0]

[0]https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Ri...

Or stop taking them away at any point, including while they serve sentences.

To me this makes most sense, otherwise putting people who would vote for an opponent in jail makes it so you can stay in power.

Pardons by the executive branch are a weapon of peace. It exists to allow the chief executive, whether the President or a Governor of a State, to settle any matter in their jurisdiction.

At the Presidential level, the power is absolute because the founders believed in the executive branch being centralized in a single individual, the President. Outside of Senate confirmation, there isn't much that limits the powers of the President and it's like that on purpose. The people get to have their say every four years.

Courts check presidential power all the time. A blatant abuse of the authority to pardon should be met with swift checks to limit that power.

Exactly - it's notable that the power of pardon is the tail end of the clause that give the president power over the military - that's not random phrasing.

> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2...

These aren't problems with the power, they're problems with people that abuse the power.

We've had presidential pardons for centuries, and they are both a carry-over from the time of kings, and they could arguably serve as a short-circuit against injustice at the hand of the legislature.

Not everything illegal is wrong. Not everyone in prison is serving a just sentence, no matter what the legal system declares it to be.

Left in the hands of the legislature, no one would ever experience mercy.

After the last 4 years, maybe it is time to realise that a working democracy can not rely on the assumption that those in power will just use their powers responsibly and honourably, and that "checks and balances" need to actually have the ability to both check and balance.

If Trump taught this country anything, I hope that it is 'relying on long-standing norms of the office is a bad idea'. I think we need legislation to make sure the 'norms' are 'required'.

Exactly.

It should also be a good example of the fact that the president of the US has an extremely and unusually large amount of power, which should probably be reduced by quite a lot.

If the argument here is essentially that we should trust the president to know better than the legislature and courts, why don't we just go with absolute dictatorship for all purposes?

The power the President is entrusted with here is solely to remit punishment. The idea is that this is an area where going overboard is less harmful than the alternative.

To add, it's easier to throw somebody back in jail if they aren't rehabilitated than it is to get someone out of 400 year sentence if they are technically guilty, no matter how extreme or ridiculous the prison sentence is for the crime they committed.

> they are both a carry-over from the time of kings

That's kind of the problem, though. Most countries didn't carry them over in the same way.

> Left in the hands of the legislature, no one would ever experience mercy.

In countries with highly regulated pardon powers, some people are sometimes pardoned (though many countries lean more on the power of the courts to overturn convictions).

> though many countries lean more on the power of the courts to overturn convictions

What if someone _did_ commit the crime, and it's proven, but the sentence is wrong (way too extreme) or the crime is now seen as archaic?

Think old homosexuality laws or blasphemy laws.

Maybe we should focus on fixing the broken justice system. There are many more people unjustly served than justly these days.

Or we could hold politicians accountable for failing to hold the president accountable through the systems that exist.

People who elected these politicians evidently approve of their performance.

It's arguably a bit of a historical oddity that the US has them at all. In most countries, particularly former British colonies, a pardon power of some sort exists, but in developed ones it's typically not, de facto, wielded by an individual (in the UK, for instance, it's theoretically wielded by the Home Secretary, but in practice a Home Secretary who used it unilaterally would find themselves immediately looking for a new job, and the norm is that it's barely used at all).

The UK used it a lot more at the time that the US became independent, which may be where the US got it from.

I don't think _any_ developed democratic country has a pardon power as unrestrained as the US one (even in countries with executive presidencies it's usually constrained in some way).

There is considerable variation in how pardons are applied around the world. Many with simple checks and balances:

- Require nomination or agreement by the AG. - Prohibit pardoning of political crimes or other self-interest. - Require approval by at least on other minister, or the whole cabinet, or some portion of the legislative body. - Require a published request for pardon, justification of the pardon, and the judiciary's comment about this justification. - Prohibited during lame duck or caretaker periods. - Allow commutations only. - Allow pardons only when someone is actually serving their sentence. - Eliminate mandatory sentences, allows judges to exercise mercy in sentencing.

Did you read the article? Are you opposed to the pardon of Davidson?

President Trump commuted the sentence of Jaime A. Davidson. This commutation is supported by Mr. Davidson’s family and friends, Alice Johnson, and numerous others. In 1993, Mr. Davidson was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in relation to the murder of an undercover officer. Notably, witnesses who testified against Mr. Davidson later recanted their testimony in sworn affidavits and further attested that Mr. Davidson had no involvement. Although Mr. Davidson has been incarcerated for nearly 29 years, the admitted shooter has already been released from prison.

That speaks to a broken justice system; that conviction should be overturned by a court.

It speaks to the inherent flaws in any justice system. Presidential pardons are just one check against that. This lies squarely in line with what a presidential pardon is intended for.

A few people saved largely at random from a broken justice system is no sort of real solution; if anything it may actually make things _worse_, as it acts as an escape valve for sufficiently scandalous cases.

In some cases it can be used to broadly pardon people due to injustice. Carter blanket pardoned all Draft dodgers [1]. It doesn't have to be a "real solution" as that isn't the duty of the president to create law, which falls squarely in the hands of congress.

It doesn't make things worse. The only reason people think it makes things worse is because it at times serves to emancipate people they think are undeserving of it. This is a small price to pay for what broadly serves as a useful tool for justice.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483

I'm not sure we should get rid of them because a corrupt sociopath misused the power. We should have gotten rid of the sociopath far sooner however.

I'm not a US citizen, but to me it seems to be ridiculous to give one person the ability to unilaterally make decisions on the lives of individuals. Not just these pardons, but also the barbaric rushed executions Trump performed. It appears to me to be antithetical to a democracy that claims to have a separation of power.

> barbaric rushed executions

Source?

Think they're referring to this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55236260

Intersting, thanks.

Is this not just a coincidence of scheduling though? Or do courts normally schedule executions for presidential transition periods?

We normally don't execute anyone ever. People on the federal death row stay there for decades.

I believe the US Government (as opposed to states) hadn't executed anyone for something like 12 years (covering 3 transition periods) and then in about 3 months, executed 13.

It's definitely not scheduling.

Right ok, But what I'm trying to find out is if these execution dates were set when the people were found guilty, or if someone just decided the execution dates recently.

Propublica has a good behind-the-scenes take on it:

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-trump-and-barrs-la...

In short, there has been a push to resume executions for nearly ten years, and it has accelerated during Trump's presidency (he campaigned on a strong pro-execution platform). In summer 2019 a shortlist was made of prisoners already on Death Row, whose appeals had failed. They then moved as quickly as they could to schedule the executions, quash further appeals and pass litigation to make them happen.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/execution-database?f...

Look at the dates, from the beginning. To me, it doesn't look like a coincidence.

I shouldn't have assumed everyone knew about this. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/15/trump-admini...

This story is especially sad. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/05/lisa-montgomer...

The BBC article linked in this thread is far more informative. But thanks.

Funny how this gets downvoted without anyone giving a comment on why my statement deserves to be downvoted.

I think it's very good that you have them, so at least a select few people can get a second chance. Instead, you should get rid of ridiculous penalty stacking and plea deals, an often obviously unjust justice system, and a penal system that systematically violates the most basic human rights and standards of decency.

No offence, but most of these pardons make perfect sense. Unfortunately, Snowden, Ulbricht, and Assange were left out.

But do they have to depend on a single person? They should go through congressional approval to avoid such blatant corruption.

> So when we do get rid of presidential pardons?

This sholdn't happen to a dog say dogs.

> We've seen "an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president." ~Mitt Romney

It's good to have friends.

> And we've seen pardons put up for sale.[0]

Free market at work.

> Is the US a nation of laws and due process or a Banana Republic where anyone can be acquitted of anything?

Taken into account that it uses it's military and secret service to promote a certain fruit company i will say the later is correct.

> [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/us/politics/trump-pardons...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com