Presidents and governors have the authority to pardon people.

why?

I don't see why an individual in the executive should hold this power.

The many disadvantages are fairly obvious:

1.The protection of someone who commits a crime on their behalf

2.Pardon by successor if they resign facing criminal charges

to name a few of the big ones, and I don't see any advantages.

There are those who object that noone we would elect would say, have their wife killed or their political enemies killed and pardon the culprit, or act in utter disregard to the law knowing their vice-president is loyal.

But our democracy is supposed to be balanced in order to protect against abuse in ways other than crossing our fingers.

If we could place absolute trust in that our leaders would do no wrong then a dictatorship would be the best form of government.

But they do, and the public or at the the other branches must have the power to hold them accountable if we deem fit. That one individual cannot have unchecked power is supposedly the hallmark of democracy, it's time we started practicing it.

Having someone who can pardon a person, above the judicial process, indicates that the process has faults. If there is a person who can say, hey, the court system is screwed up & you're really innocent, makes it appear that they don't put much faith in the accuracy in our policing/ trials/judges.

The person shouldn't be able to operate outside the law by means of that power.

That's why power is usually divided among a number of people, there should be oversight and guidelines of some kind at the very least.

the pardon is the executive branch's check on the judicial branch

The person shouldn't be able to operate outside the law by means of that power.

That's why power is usually divided among a number of people, there should be oversight and guidelines of some kind at the very least.

It's not outside of the law, by definition. It is the oversight. The President doensn't have the power to condemn someone, just to pardon them. The reason being that our society favors liberty over justice.

the pardon is the executive branch's check on the judicial branch

DAWT. The Bench is supposed to regard the law as a mechanical object and interpret it not legislate-there are always exigencies not covered by this mechanical thing-it's better to have a man who was put there by the people
to decide the grey areas-if there is abuse-and there is a potential-as long as the offensive act was halted,what real difference does it make to society?

The President doensn't have the power to condemn someone, just to pardon them. The reason being that our society favors liberty over justice.
__________________

If so inclined, a president could murder ihis political opponents, resign and be pardoned by his successor.

Explain why that should be legal. Why there should be no safegaurds against that

If so inclined, a president could murder ihis political opponents, resign and be pardoned by his successor.

Explain why that should be legal. Why there should be no safegaurds against that
Impeachment is a check against abusive pardons.

Don't get me wrnog, I agree with you that there is a lot of room for abuse of the pardon - but at least its usage is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. On the other hand, the practice of indefinitely detaining smoeone without charges while denying access to a lawyer and the suspension of habeas corpus rights is not.

So I say, pick your battles.

Because nobody would do that.
Frankly, pardons just don't work that way.

Impeachment is a check against abusive pardons.

You can't impeach someone for a crime they can't be charged with

we don't give power and hope noone misuses it, that's why we have checks and balances to begin with!

First:

Section. 2. of the Constitution of the United States

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

You can't impeach someone for a crime they can't be charged with

This is a baffling statment to make. The House of Representatives vote to impeach, in effect "charging" someone. This is entirely independent of any actions by the Department of Justice - part of the executive branch - for obvious reasons. I can explain what comes next, if you'd like.

It's not outside of the law, by definition. It is the oversight. The President doensn't have the power to condemn someone, just to pardon them. The reason being that our society favors liberty over justice.

A well thought out, intelligent answer from the left. :)

A well thought out, intelligent answer from the left. :)
Discussing the powers granted to each branch of government is not a left/right issue.

Discussing the powers granted to each branch of government is not a left/right issue.

I'm really not trying to make this a partisan thing, but I think Mr. Radley is right this time.

This is a baffling statment to make. The House of Representatives vote to impeach, in effect "charging" someone.

My mistake, but they can still pull a Nixon. He's can never be brought to justice for conspiracy to commit robbery now can he?

How high a crime would it have to be to be a miscarraige of justice?

If so inclined, a president could murder ihis political opponents, resign and be pardoned by his successor.

Explain why that should be legal. Why there should be no safegaurds against that
Popular opinion is a safegaurd.

My mistake, but they can still pull a Nixon. He's can never be brought to justice for conspiracy to commit robbery now can he?

How high a crime would it have to be to be a miscarraige of justice?

He's dead.His sins are someone else's responsibility...

The president's power to pardon is just like that of every governer in the nation, only on a federal level. If he should not have that ability, should the governers?

If so inclined, a president could murder ihis political opponents, resign and be pardoned by his successor.

Explain why that should be legal. Why there should be no safegaurds against that

Yeah that has happened.

Clintoon pardoned tons of criminals that had given him political money.

But you don't have a firm grasp of these things work.

Go read the constitution. Then read the supporting papers pro and con: the federalist and the anti-federalist papers and you might start to have more than a rudimentary grasp of the pardon

The president's power to pardon is just like that of every governer in the nation, only on a federal level.
I'm starting to think that you never took a civics course. Every state has its own constitution, and therefore each state has a different process for pardons/clemency. For example, in Texas, the legislature sets up a parole board which reviews all of these requests. This board has to agree to a pardon first, and then the governor must accept this request. In other states, like Connecticut, an independent commission is set up by the governor and all of its decisions are final.

Here's a couple more:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/rights_restoration/table4.html

For example, in Texas, the legislature sets up a parole board which reviews all of these requests. This board has to agree to a pardon first, and then the governor must accept this request. In other states, like Connecticut, an independent commission is set up by the governor and all of its decisions are final.

Those seem like much better systems.:nice:

Those seem like much better systems.:nice:
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=87