This is why the President should not have the power to pardon. If it turns out the justice system is sending people to jail who should not be there, we need to reform the justice system, not provide the President with a veto that keeps the bad system intact.
Given the many instances of crooks trying to stay in office to maintain immunity, I propose a quasi-Greek solution.
Total amnesty for any and all crimes before the date of election and outlaw (hostis humani generis) for any and all crimes afterwards. It'll encourage people to be very afraid of accepting the job.
Agreed, I've held this position for a long time. It baffles me that people don't seem to realize there's no "net win" in allowing one single person the authority to unilaterally overturn the entire judicial system with the stroke of an (auto)pen.
There's a reason it used to be called the Royal Pardon. It was the prerogative of kings.
Oh, what's that you say? It can be used to correct injustices? Yeah, that pendulum swings both ways.
There isn't ever going to be a perfect justice system. An escape hatch is necessary.
The chief executive is a good place to put that escape hatch. That's the one that voters pay most attention to. If voters disapprove of this pardon, they can let that be known.
On the other hand, if voters approve of a bribe-taking felon, who am I to tell them that they're wrong? We've had plenty of opportunities to push back on this behavior. This is ultimately on us, not the system.
Our justice system needs myriad reforms. Practically nobody wants to touch that; voters don't like it when you propose to let more people go. So I'd just as soon not remove the final escape hatch on offer. If it happens to let some billionaires off the hook, that matters less to me than the vast number of people in jail because they were too poor to afford to fend off abusive prosecution.
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 58.3 ms ] threadHey, there are rules to split the loot honorably. This is totally unacceptable!
Total amnesty for any and all crimes before the date of election and outlaw (hostis humani generis) for any and all crimes afterwards. It'll encourage people to be very afraid of accepting the job.
There's a reason it used to be called the Royal Pardon. It was the prerogative of kings.
Oh, what's that you say? It can be used to correct injustices? Yeah, that pendulum swings both ways.
The chief executive is a good place to put that escape hatch. That's the one that voters pay most attention to. If voters disapprove of this pardon, they can let that be known.
On the other hand, if voters approve of a bribe-taking felon, who am I to tell them that they're wrong? We've had plenty of opportunities to push back on this behavior. This is ultimately on us, not the system.
Our justice system needs myriad reforms. Practically nobody wants to touch that; voters don't like it when you propose to let more people go. So I'd just as soon not remove the final escape hatch on offer. If it happens to let some billionaires off the hook, that matters less to me than the vast number of people in jail because they were too poor to afford to fend off abusive prosecution.