Are you for or opposed to the Presidential Pardon?

[Midnight Judges]

Poll to follow.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Opposed. Giving the execute the power to over turn decisions made by courts, and generally for direct benefactors of the executive is just very banana republic ish

[PokerPacker]

if our forefathers saw fit to give the executive branch a check over the judiciary, I'll trust them.

[sacase]

Most presidents use it on people who have already served their time. I have no problems if it is used like that.

[Jumbo]

Opposed to it? I counted on it. And I'm grateful.

[Larry]

Absolutely support it. And without limitations.

I really want for there to be some power to grant Mercy. And I believe that if that power is going to exist, then the President is the person who should have it.

Yes, it can be abused. But in my opinion, the correct check on that power is a political one.

[PeterMP]

I support it, but it is being misused these days.

Unlike Larry, though, I don't think there is a political correction that can be made and think there needs to be some other changes.

First off, I don't think what Ford did for Nixon (and what Bush is likely to do for several people in his Administration (a blanket pardon for all crimes)) should be possible. A pardon should have to state EXPLICITY what the crime was (not, for example, first degree murder, but an explicit description) for which the person has been pardoned.

[LegionOfDoom]

I'm against it. I feel as if it is a way for the President to be able to perform a last swann dive to save rich friends or friends of rich people he know.

It is not equal. If only there was a system in place to grant Pardons for individuals who have served a set number of years post incarceration based upon the crime they committed.

If something like this is established than I would feel comfortable with the POTUS granting Pardons.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It depends on the president. :D

[Larry]

Should Rosa Parks have been pardoned?

She broke the law. Was convicted. Did the President subvert justice by Pardoning her?

-----

And, FWIW: I voted for Gerald Ford, twice (once as a write-in) predominately because he Pardoned Nixon. I loathed Nixon with a passion. To this day I'm not certain if he was a worse President than W. But, I also feel that Pardoning Nixon prevented another decade of partisan politics dividing the country. IMO, Gerald Ford Pardoned Nixon, knowing that it would cost him, politically, because he felt it was good for the country. (And he was right.)

In short, I consider Pardoning Nixon to be perhaps the best example of national interest overcoming political power seeking that I've seen.

[PleaseBlitz]

Im with Larry. The pardon has a use, and an important one.

[Burgundy Burner]

It's needed. Sure, there will always be politics involved in some choices, but that is to be expected. It can be used as a tool for compassion too. Many non-violent types are serving sentences that are too long as well.

The pardon system also eliminates (at least potentially) any abuse that we may see from the judiciary branch. I'd like to see presidents use the pardon power a little more in lawsuits where the abuse is all too obvious. It would eliminate court cases that range from the absurd to the open and shut cases - true tort reform.

[Midnight Judges]

I support it, but it is being misused these days.

Unlike Larry, though, I don't think there is a political correction that can be made and think there needs to be some other changes.

First off, I don't think what Ford did for Nixon (and what Bush is likely to do for several people in his Administration (a blanket pardon for all crimes)) should be possible. A pardon should have to state EXPLICITY what the crime was (not, for example, first degree murder, but an explicit description) for which the person has been pardoned.

I think that would open one hell of a can of worms in trying to make that distinction betwen blanket and specifics. Besides, people would just include a clause in the pardon that blanketed every crime imaginable.

IMO, the Presidential pardon is subversive to the law and it begs to be abused. And it is. If our justice system is good enough for the regular folks, it ought to be good enough for the priveledged friends of the President as well.

I also think Nixon should have gone to prison. What would have been good for the country in the long run would have been for Nixon to do hard time. You think Dubya, Cheney, Addington etc would be crapping all over our laws for the last seven years if they knew there was any way they could be prosecuted? Instead Nixon proved that his philosophy about our Government was correct. Whatever the President does is automatically legal by default. He's above the law and so are his friends.

[ACW]

Good idea; needs to be used more often.

[PeterMP]

I think that would open one hell of a can of worms in trying to make that distinction betwen blanket and specifics. Besides, people would just include a clause in the pardon that blanketed every crime imaginable.

I don't think it would be that hard. Our legal system already has something in place. When pleading guilty to a crime, it is frequently required that you describe your crime in detail.

Do the samethings for pardons.