Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

  1. #1
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    06-20-18 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    492

    Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    So the judge who ruled on Arpaio's pardon stated that the pardon only cancels the punishment, not the record or a crime having been committed.

    This makes sense, but I have a question about the use of pardons given this opinion. Below is the list of pardons from Obama near the end of his presidency. I am only using this because it was conveniently posted in another discussion, I know all presidents pardon and I'm not claiming that his were more abusive or any such partisan thing, just using it as an example.

    Now, take the first one. James Robert Adelman. 12 years imprisonment, $350,000 restitution, dated 1989. Well, 12 years from 1989 comes to... 2001. Maybe he still owed money, but his sentence would be long since served.

    Next one, John Clyde Anderson. 3 yrs imprisonment, 3 yrs probation, 2 yrs parole. In total, that's 8 years, but counting forward from the sentencing date of 1972, that brings us to... 1980.

    There are many more on the list.

    So what is the reason for "pardoning" these people if they should already have completed their "punishment"? I believe there have been some posthumous pardons as well, so what is the point if it doesn't "clear their name?"

  2. #2
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,682

    Re: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    The existence of pardons undermines our judicial system.

  3. #3
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    06-20-18 @ 07:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    492

    Re: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    The existence of pardons undermines our judicial system.
    Not a political science major, but I do believe that was the entire point. Just as the judicial system undermines the legislative system.

    But that doesn't answer my question. Why grant meaningless pardons if the purpose/function of the pardon is simply negating the punishment?

  4. #4
    Guru


    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,489

    Re: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat364 View Post
    So the judge who ruled on Arpaio's pardon stated that the pardon only cancels the punishment, not the record or a crime having been committed.

    This makes sense, but I have a question about the use of pardons given this opinion. Below is the list of pardons from Obama near the end of his presidency. I am only using this because it was conveniently posted in another discussion, I know all presidents pardon and I'm not claiming that his were more abusive or any such partisan thing, just using it as an example.

    Now, take the first one. James Robert Adelman. 12 years imprisonment, $350,000 restitution, dated 1989. Well, 12 years from 1989 comes to... 2001. Maybe he still owed money, but his sentence would be long since served.

    Next one, John Clyde Anderson. 3 yrs imprisonment, 3 yrs probation, 2 yrs parole. In total, that's 8 years, but counting forward from the sentencing date of 1972, that brings us to... 1980.

    There are many more on the list.

    So what is the reason for "pardoning" these people if they should already have completed their "punishment"? I believe there have been some posthumous pardons as well, so what is the point if it doesn't "clear their name?"
    The court resolved that open issue, ruling that the presidential pardon did not require vacating all prior orders in the case. Addressing specifically the judgment of conviction, the court wrote.

    The court concluded:

    “The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping.” United States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 955 (3d Cir. 1990). To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt. The President issued the pardon. Defendant accepted. The pardon undoubtedly spared Defendant from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed. It did not, however, “revise the historical facts” of this case. See 67A C.J.S. Pardon & Parole § 33.

    The same day the Order was entered Arpaio filed a Notice of Appeal. So this story is not over.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/1...d/#more-230683
    Text from FBI Attorney Page to FBI Agent Strozk.
    “Trump’s not ever going to become president, right? Right!?” Page texted Strzok in August 2016.
    “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,361

    Re: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat364 View Post
    Not a political science major, but I do believe that was the entire point. Just as the judicial system undermines the legislative system.

    But that doesn't answer my question. Why grant meaningless pardons if the purpose/function of the pardon is simply negating the punishment?
    I agree completely with your first sentence. Why grant pardons in these situations? Politics and favors. It is as simple as that.

  6. #6
    Question authority
    Grand Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    on an island off the left coast of Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,196
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat364 View Post
    So the judge who ruled on Arpaio's pardon stated that the pardon only cancels the punishment, not the record or a crime having been committed.

    This makes sense, but I have a question about the use of pardons given this opinion. Below is the list of pardons from Obama near the end of his presidency. I am only using this because it was conveniently posted in another discussion, I know all presidents pardon and I'm not claiming that his were more abusive or any such partisan thing, just using it as an example.

    Now, take the first one. James Robert Adelman. 12 years imprisonment, $350,000 restitution, dated 1989. Well, 12 years from 1989 comes to... 2001. Maybe he still owed money, but his sentence would be long since served.

    Next one, John Clyde Anderson. 3 yrs imprisonment, 3 yrs probation, 2 yrs parole. In total, that's 8 years, but counting forward from the sentencing date of 1972, that brings us to... 1980.

    There are many more on the list.

    So what is the reason for "pardoning" these people if they should already have completed their "punishment"? I believe there have been some posthumous pardons as well, so what is the point if it doesn't "clear their name?"
    Different types of pardon? Or different definitions?
    Here, Canada, you can get a pardon for a long-past criminal conviction that removes the offense from your record. For example, you got busted with an ounce of pot 25 years ago. You can apply for and get a pardon that removes it from your record. People do that so they can cross borders or work in certain situations.
    "How do I know what I think 'till I hear what I say?"
    -DJ Trump-

  7. #7
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    21,882

    Re: Pardons - Question about the tradition in light of Arpaio

    Quote Originally Posted by tomkat364 View Post
    So the judge who ruled on Arpaio's pardon stated that the pardon only cancels the punishment, not the record or a crime having been committed.

    This makes sense, but I have a question about the use of pardons given this opinion. Below is the list of pardons from Obama near the end of his presidency. I am only using this because it was conveniently posted in another discussion, I know all presidents pardon and I'm not claiming that his were more abusive or any such partisan thing, just using it as an example.

    Now, take the first one. James Robert Adelman. 12 years imprisonment, $350,000 restitution, dated 1989. Well, 12 years from 1989 comes to... 2001. Maybe he still owed money, but his sentence would be long since served.

    Next one, John Clyde Anderson. 3 yrs imprisonment, 3 yrs probation, 2 yrs parole. In total, that's 8 years, but counting forward from the sentencing date of 1972, that brings us to... 1980.

    There are many more on the list.

    So what is the reason for "pardoning" these people if they should already have completed their "punishment"? I believe there have been some posthumous pardons as well, so what is the point if it doesn't "clear their name?"
    I cannot remember where, but I have read that the only pardon issued by George Washington at the end of his term was for those men he personally went out and arrested that were the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

    One possible factor for some to seek pardons from POTUS is so that their federal gun rights will be restored, according to friends of mine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •