Yes or no? Explain.
2007-03-07 03:56:23 · 14 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, I think he or she should be allowed to grant them. Unfortunately, I think a lot of our past Presidents have abused the process. It's typical (power corrupts), but maybe we need to put a checks and balances system into place to keep it in line.
2007-03-07 04:08:34 · answer #1 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. If a person has been found guilty either by jury or judge then that decision should be accepted. I believe a person should have the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal if there is a serious issue of how the trial was handled. I think the only time a pardon or reprieve should about is when there is a serious miscarriage of justice like a person being rail-roaded or it comes light that they are innocent. Hey, has every single person that been convicted ever really been innocent? Yeah right!
DRAGON 2008
"I BELIEVE IN U.S"
2007-03-07 04:09:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Granting a pardon is outlined in the Constitution. They have been used by Presidents for very good purposes, from time to time, especially when politics of an era would prevent doing the right thing. Carter granted pardons to vietnam war draft dodgers, Johnson (Andrew, not LBJ!) granted pardons to Confederate officers following the civil war.
2007-03-07 04:06:13 · answer #3 · answered by Firesidechat 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the executive branch should have the power to pardon people at will but in exceptional times it has been fair and justified. There are many governors in history that have pardoned convicted criminals because their punishments were too severe for the crime... or that have pardoned criminals that new evidence cast doubt on their guilt but could not be re-tried.
I wish that presidents and governors did not use pardons to reward cronies or political benefactors but I will accept this for the fair use of this power.
2007-03-07 04:07:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a constitutional power, but could be abused.
I would say yes, the power should be there. Every state governor has it also; it's a typical incident of executive power. It would be strange NOT to have it.
Clemency - forgiveness - is in general a good concept. Most executives are very careful how it is used.
I think public opinion and the verdict of history would be sufficient checks on this power.
2007-03-07 06:28:31 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is tradition and should remain. However, I believe it should be used sparingly. Some use it to get fellow crooks out of spending time in jail or to make a political point to the opposition. That is not what it was intended to do. Oversight on the part of Congress should point out those wrongly released and if too many Presidents abuse it, take it from them.
2007-03-07 04:31:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would give politicians who are under the President's wing a free hand to bend the law to serve their purpose. Americans already feel that there is a 2 tier system of justice, lets not make it worse.
2007-03-07 04:10:56 · answer #7 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it was intended to be a rarely used safety valve - some case (right or wrong) has some large portion of the populace up in arms and if no "justice" is served then riots or worse ensue. I'll give the nod to the framers on this one.
2007-03-07 04:01:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. No one deserves special treatment from the president. Bush won't even pardon Ramos and Compean, and they were just doing their job. If he won't pardon them, he damn well better not pardon anyone else
2007-03-07 04:01:10 · answer #9 · answered by gizmo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the president should have every power in the US.
What did you say when your own Clinton pardoned a criminal?
2007-03-07 05:02:35 · answer #10 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋