• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arkansas governor to pardon son on drug charges

I'm fairly certain that there are more than 700 citizens of Arkansas with non violent criminal histories.

... If he had pardoned them all, you would have been satisfied? 700 people being pardoned on a case by case basis is pretty good. It's around 2 cases a day for a year. Far better than what the average governor deals with. Your outrage is noted, but it's not different than anything I would do. :shrug:
 
A pardon from a governor can be the difference between getting that job and being seen as a pariah for the rest of your life.

Not for a simple marijuana conviction 10 years ago for which he had already served his probation. The folks who are likely to be concerned at all by that aren't going to be swayed another way because he was pardoned by his father. It seems like a risky and zero sum gain move by a politician to make.
 
Not for a simple marijuana conviction 10 years ago for which he had already served his probation. The folks who are likely to be concerned at all by that aren't going to be swayed another way because he was pardoned by his father. It seems like a risky and zero sum gain move by a politician to make.

You ever been convicted of a felony?
 
You ever been convicted of a felony?

No, but I've many times been on the other side of the HR table. The pardon won't erase his conviction in any practical manner. Again, he'll still have to answer yes to your question. Every form I've ever seen that contains that question also asks for an explanation. That it was what it was and 10 years ago, sentence fully discharged, is enough.
 
... If he had pardoned them all, you would have been satisfied? 700 people being pardoned on a case by case basis is pretty good. It's around 2 cases a day for a year. Far better than what the average governor deals with. Your outrage is noted, but it's not different than anything I would do. :shrug:

I'm not against him correcting an unjust ruling, my concern is that the unjust laws still stand and are strengthened by the perception of oversight, rather than corrected.
 
I have to say, in a country founded on the belief that all people are created equal and opposed to government ruled by a corrupt sovereign, I find it passing strange that the US has provisions for a "king/queen" to pardon his/her subjects on a whim without sanction by a court or legislature.

No one person in a democracy should have the power to overturn the decision of a jury and justice in a court of law, period.

The difference here CJ is that the governor is answerable to the people while the corrupt monarch is likely answerable to no one.

Executive pardon is simple another check in our elaborate system of checks and balances.
 
I'm not against him correcting an unjust ruling, my concern is that the unjust laws still stand and are strengthened by the perception of oversight, rather than corrected.

I agree but as a practical matter there's probably little the governor can do about that.
 
The difference here CJ is that the governor is answerable to the people while the corrupt monarch is likely answerable to no one.

Executive pardon is simple another check in our elaborate system of checks and balances.

How is the governor answerable to the public when he's not standing for reelection? Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is another example. There's no check or balance involved here - it's one person, heading out the door, overturning the justice system on a whim.
 
How is the governor answerable to the public when he's not standing for reelection? Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich is another example. There's no check or balance involved here - it's one person, heading out the door, overturning the justice system on a whim.

But he does stand for re-election eventually. Maybe not this year or next but eventually. Voting someone out of office is the Constitutional means that the electorate has to remove an executive or law maker that the electorate disagrees with. Granted it may take some time but that's the way our system is designed to work
 
But he does stand for re-election eventually. Maybe not this year or next but eventually. Voting someone out of office is the Constitutional means that the electorate has to remove an executive or law maker that the electorate disagrees with. Granted it may take some time but that's the way our system is designed to work

With all due respect, that's nonsense. What opportunity has the American public had to give Bill Clinton a voter's booth lesson as it relates to Marc Rich? None. Unless you're going to claim that the executive's party suffers electoral loss for the bone-headed pardons of their leader once he/she leaves office. Haley Barbour was no different, from the Republican side, when he left the Governorship of Mississippi and pardoned a violent offender who happened to work as his gardener at the Governor's mansion.

You cannot claim the voters get to show their displeasure when the person who pardons never runs for office again.
 
With all due respect, that's nonsense. What opportunity has the American public had to give Bill Clinton a voter's booth lesson as it relates to Marc Rich? None. Unless you're going to claim that the executive's party suffers electoral loss for the bone-headed pardons of their leader once he/she leaves office. Haley Barbour was no different, from the Republican side, when he left the Governorship of Mississippi and pardoned a violent offender who happened to work as his gardener at the Governor's mansion.

You cannot claim the voters get to show their displeasure when the person who pardons never runs for office again.

Yes I should have pointed out that if the executive decides to not run for re-election he's effectively insulated from voter wrath at the polls but that is true for any actions taken by a lame duck executive. The only real check in that case is the harm done to
his legacy if his lame duck actions, including pardons, meet with popular disapproval.

The system isn't perfect I agree but in it's defense I'd point out that our judicial heritage has always been to release the guilty in preference to incarcerating the innocent and executive pardon falls in line with that philosophy. Can executives abuse that power and free people who deserve to be in prison? Sure. But given that executives can also use that power as intended to free people in prison for what they legitimately see as miscarriages of justice, the drafters of the US and state Constitutions felt executive pardon is on balance a good thing. And I agree with that.
 
Yes I should have pointed out that if the executive decides to not run for re-election he's effectively insulated from voter wrath at the polls but that is true for any actions taken by a lame duck executive. The only real check in that case is the harm done to
his legacy if his lame duck actions, including pardons, meet with popular disapproval.

The system isn't perfect I agree but in it's defense I'd point out that our judicial heritage has always been to release the guilty in preference to incarcerating the innocent and executive pardon falls in line with that philosophy. Can executives abuse that power and free people who deserve to be in prison? Sure. But given that executives can also use that power as intended to free people in prison for what they legitimately see as miscarriages of justice, the drafters of the US and state Constitutions felt executive pardon is on balance a good thing. And I agree with that.

On principle, you could be right - in practice, not so much so. Executives seldom pardon the truly innocent - the truly innocent seldom have the political or financial heft to sway an executive in their favour. Usually, the politically attuned and those who fund political parties, as in the Marc Rich case, are pardoned.

I'd be much more supportive of a system that required executive pardons to be sanctioned by the legislative body in that jurisdiction. But then, I'm not American, so it's really not my battle - I was just pointing out the inconsistency of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom