Something I've been stewing about lately, as it seems like every president is recent history, regardless of party, has no problem pardoning convicted criminals.
So what's the point of courts, judges, juries, attorneys, etc, when it can all be nullified if you or your significant other make a generous enough political contribution to the sitting president?
Second question: which political party best suits the apathetic?
Thanks.
2007-01-13 14:29:09 · 15 answers · asked by Rob 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, the "ability to pardon" does not undermine the system. The abuse of that power does, but not the ability.
Second question: none, obviously.
2007-01-13 14:36:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The president decides whether there is a compelling national interest in not incarcerating a convicted person. We elect him to accomplish this task in the rare case such a pardon is required. Most states extend this privilege to their governors as well.
Use of the presidential pardon is subject to scrutiny by mass media, and it is highly unlikely a president could "get away with" a pardon to a convicted felon who made a political contribution. The act may subject him to impeachment.
As to the second question, the political party that best suits the apathetic is the one currently in power. If one is genuinely apathetic, he lacks the interest in the running of government so it matters not which party is currently at the helm.
2007-01-21 13:29:34 · answer #2 · answered by padrejoseph 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A president or governor pardoning criminals can undermine the judiciary, but it usually is the voice of reason. There are times when our justice system is unjust because it needs to enforce the law evenly on everyone, even when other circumstances are present. That is the time for the executive branch to step in with a pardon.
The pardon does undermine the criminal system when it is used for political purposes. Unfortunately, President Clinton's pardons of Mark Rich and commuted the sentence of Chicago Congressman Mel Reynolds (who had sex with a 16 year old minor). Those situations are uncommon, but they do happen. It will be interesting to see who Bush pardons in 2008.
2007-01-13 14:58:48 · answer #3 · answered by rudy4prez 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Question 1 Are you referring to the pardons that Clinton gave as he was leaving office?
Jimmy Carter pardoned a woman who then became a care giver for Amy Carter, his youngest child while he was in office. This would not be undermining the criminal justice system, since she must have been rehabilitated enough to meet his family standards, or could have been treated unfairly in the court system.
Question 2 - No party is of interest to the apathetic that I know of.
2007-01-20 20:24:10 · answer #4 · answered by desertflower 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, we are a civilized country, and we do have the right to terminate the life of certain criminals. Why would anyone think that charging a teen who committed a particularly horrible crime should be treated as a child? They are a vicious sociopath who needs to be separated from society. Our system of justice may not be prefect, but it is without a doubt way ahead of other countries. Nowhere else in the world are the criminal's rights more protected than in our system. Look at the Amanda Knox case, in Italy. She was tried in Italian court, with trumped up evidence and flat out lies, then the state sues her for slander for accusing the guards of mistreating her. I have been a street cop and a corrections officer, and ot hear people such as yourself pontificating about how bad our justice system is makes me want to puke. You have no idea what you are talking about, protected as you are from the seamier side of life by the men and women in uniform who dedicate their lives to protecting you so you can spew your vitriol. Do some real research before you go flapping your gums about things you have no idea of.
2016-05-23 22:51:14 · answer #5 · answered by Lilly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why is it always the presidents fault? duh i guess its easier to use the president as the fall guy (scapegoat). congress and the supreme court have given the president certain powers.
if you don't like the system either change it or say adios and move to a country of your choosing
neither party suits the apathetic. both are doing a good job.
2007-01-18 17:07:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why does every thing that goes on have to do with polotics?is there no life out there without someone wanting things that they have to steal fron thoes that put their heart and soul into their familey?why is there always some swinging dick that can,t live and let live?there is nothing higher than a familey unit so why does it come to wanting to RULE? i,m american indian think it,s not hell?greed; there is no gruop or person that will take the freedom from our hearts no matter what they do.BET ME
2007-01-21 11:16:54 · answer #7 · answered by peggy m 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunatly the president can pardon any person that he sees fit. I'm not talking about Bush I'm talking about all presidents.
2007-01-13 14:33:43 · answer #8 · answered by Richard Cranium 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only if that president has the last name of "Clinton"
2007-01-13 14:49:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's supposed to be a check on the judiciary, so in theory no it doesn't.
2007-01-13 14:37:58 · answer #10 · answered by SatanicYoda 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋