It may well be in the constitution but I believe it is like a King would do, not like the head of a democracy. If someone is guilty and convicted then they should have to serve their time. I didn't approve of any of the pardons so don't try to tell me I am a just a lame lib.
2007-07-08 13:41:36 · 11 answers · asked by Cindy P 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It was instituted so that if there was political vendettas the President could rectify the situation. Yes kings also had that power. There is always in all times, some people who do things to show extraordinary step to make their lives and the lives of others better, this allows a decision to remove someone who deserves it.
There are also reasons of timing, during the Civil RIghts years for instance, it came to be seen that some of those arrested were in the right, and were fighting to right serious wrongs. They were pardoned.
Most of the pardons of the past twenty years or so don't qualify under those ideals. But all presidents do it, and it can be a good thing, needless to say, it can also be abused.
There are guidelines, they call for time to have been served and remorse expressed, and other things too, its on the Department of Justice site, as are the pardons and the crimes those people committed of each of the presidents.
Commutation is not used as often. Bush One and Clinton are neck and neck as to number of people pardoned. And both of them pardoned criminals...after all, none of them would have had to have pardoned someone who wasn't convicted of a crime.
2007-07-08 13:53:58 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Executive ability to offer a pardon is an incredibly important aspect of any democracy. Study what Kings actually did to get a real perspective on what the Founding Fathers knew when they set this in the Constitution.
Also, consider that the pardons happen completely in the open. Everyone knows when a pardon happens which means that We The People are free to ***** and moan about it as we see fit.
2007-07-08 21:48:09 · answer #2 · answered by David S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Though pardons and commutations are now used for political purposes, they serve an important function.
After exhausting all appeals, an innocent person still has the possibility of the President or a Governer intervening in a miscarriage of justice.
Just because corrupt politicians pervert the Constitution for their own benefit, doesn't mean the original intent is the problem.
2007-07-08 20:47:58 · answer #3 · answered by No Chance Without Bernoulli 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes this is a great thing for the presidents to be able to do.
now bush has abused his powers again by pardoning a person because they may spill the beans about him and his bunch if he did not pardon them . reviews of pardons should be conducted and the president should have to answer questions as to why he granted the pardons. if the investigation shows that corruption was the reason for the pardon then that president should be removed from office.
2007-07-08 20:46:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Most democracies have a means of pardoning people including the US, Canada, Australia, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and South Africa to name a few.
Its also seen as a check on the power of the judiciary, which is not democratically accountable.
2007-07-08 20:47:46 · answer #5 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gee how long has that question roll around up there before it hit you.
It is called the Constitution look it up sometime.
I don't understand why any liberal has any right to complain after the fire sale of pardon Clinton did on the way out without so much as a peep.
Yet 1 commuted sentence you think the world has come to an end.
Get a grip.
2007-07-08 20:45:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Pardons have always been part of the rights as president. I'm glad you don't approve, but in some cases they are right. Not the way Clinton sold his signature, but most administration have had good reasoning behind it.
2007-07-08 20:45:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is called checks and balances. It is one of the President's ways to balance the power of the court.
2007-07-08 21:00:20 · answer #8 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Youre not a lame lib, it's not fair anyone who commits any crime deserve to be punished ESPECIALLY if youre someone like a president, you're supposed to be trusted and a leader so if you break the trust and you responsibilities as a leader you need to be punished.
Kings used to be beheaded for treason or tyranny.
2007-07-08 20:47:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Because they like to be The Big Cheese!
2007-07-08 20:44:12 · answer #10 · answered by MensaMan 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋