Decky wrote:You are missing my point though, if you think all of those people should actually not be in prison why not try to get actual reforms to the law and to sentencing?
That is a political question. For example, Barack Obama could have granted pardons for illegal aliens up to the his last moment in office, but no further. He chose not to do that. His reasons were political. Trump is choosing to pardon some people. His reasons are also political. Trump's pardons are potentially a prelude to FBI/DoJ reform. Hopefully, it will preclude them from behaving so ruthlessly.
Decky wrote:As opposed to having the head of state just letting people out of prison on a whim because the prosecutor who put them there was one of his political opponents?
The president is the chief law enforcement officer. He can override the actions of his inferiors any time he wants. There isn't anything feudal about that, unless you think hierarchical authority is a problem (which i'm sure you do).
Decky wrote:It is absolutely feudal.
There isn't anything hereditary here. There are no titles of nobility, no vassals, etc. It's just an exercise of executive power you don't particularly agree with.
Decky wrote:Is someone had told me such a system existed today in this century and I didn't already know that the US uses it I would think they were describing some Islamist theocracy or some South American military junta.
You need to get out more. From someone who lives under a Queen with a House of Lords, it's a bit rich. For example, in 2006 the UK pardoned all soldiers convicted of cowardice during WWI. Switzerland, South Africa, Russia, Poland, Italy, Israel, Ireland, Iran, India, Hong Kong, Greece, Germany and Canada all have pardons or executive clemency of some form. Islamic theocracies are not Christian, so clemency isn't something you'd likely find in an Islamist country.
Zamuel wrote:An excellent thought. It wasn't intended to be used this way, what else can I say.
You can say it's not feudal. The Founders debated the matter, and the main areas of debate against it were for presidential misconduct, for which they created the impeachment of a president; and, for cases of treason, which did not make it into the constitution--quite possibly since they were techically all guilty of treason against the Crown.
Ter wrote:It is often the only way that judicial misconduct can be rectified.
And at time, prosecutorial misconduct. The Scooter Libby case was a key example of misconduct.
Zamuel wrote:Not so sure about that. Maybe, I don't think we should be freeing violent Nazis because "it works for Trump."
Trump hasn't done that. Obama pardoned cop killers and Clinton pardoned terrorists. Why are you more concerned with what Trump might do, but not so troubled by what was already done?
MistyTiger wrote:Can he un-pardon people? I think he should un-pardon Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby is a major idiot. Enough said.
Being an idiot isn't a crime, which should bring you some relief. Scooter Libby didn't leak Plame's name to the press. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that before questioning Libby and finding a pretext to prosecute him. That is prosecutorial misconduct. Those types of cases should be reviewed and liberal dispensations granted in the absence of evidence of other suspected wrongdoing.
Decky wrote:In the developed world we have these things called appeals.
Pardons only exist for all practical purposes in Anglo-European societies--i.e., Christian countries. Iran and India are notable exceptions, and India used to be part of Britain.Trump Flirts With Pardons and Prison Reform