One defensible exercise was the clemency granted to Leonard Peltier. His conviction was always dubious, based on the testimony of the same FBI that was engaged in the COINTELPRO operations against the recently-mentioned MLK. The FBI hasn't just been bad in the last few years; this wannabe secret police has been bad since its foundation. Gun battles with them ought to be considered gently by juries, under the assumption that they probably deserved whatever resistance they provoked. Instead he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences and, eligible for parole since 1993, has been kept in harsh conditions amid regular beatings likely encouraged by the prison guards.
Biden was typically cowardly here, not pardoning the one character on his list who might have merited a pardon. He just gave him clemency to "lifetime house arrest." What a disgrace.
UPDATE: More on Leonard Peltier’s case.
7 comments:
Grim
Correct me if I’m wrong
Don’t you have to be convicted of a crime before you are pardoned?
Logically you have to be found guilty of the crime first…. and how could Biden pardon somebody after the conviction occurs after he’s left office?
None of this parting crap is even based on reason
The power doesn't seem to be limited. It's based on a royal prerogative that the Kings of England had, which doesn't (didn't) require a conviction or even a prosecution occur beforehand. The Department of Justice has duly noted all of these on its website as legitimate pardons, although that will have been the outgoing DOJ leadership.
We will see if there is a legal challenge. It's a bit strange to preemptively pardon people not even accused of any particular crime.
According to several legal-things websites, accepting a pardon means that the recipient is admitting guilt. While the person cannot be charged for a criminal act, they can be charged for civil offenses. So the prisoners who rejected clemency did so because they claim innocence.
I am not an attorney, so I could be missing some details and limitations.
LittleRed1
Admitting guilt to what? They’re not even indicted for anything.
I've been doing a little reading on this, and have seen a few interesting comments as well. The concept of a President pardon without conviction or accusation goes all the way back to George Washington who issued a blanket pardon for participants in the Whiskey Rebellion. More recently Jimmy Carter pardoned all Vietnam Era draft evaders including those never charged or convicted. For the most part such pardons are usually for groups of unnamed individuals who committed a specific offense, and in such cases of course would not have yet been charged. Ford's pardon for Nixon didn't specify any crimes nor did Reagan's for Cap Wienberger. The USSC case Burdick v US which established that pardons can be rejected because they are legally an admission of guilt was about pardons Woodrow Wilson issued to two reporters in an attempt to defeat their claims to Fifth Amendment protection and compel them to reveal information about a crime they had reported on. They were charged with bribing officials to reveal information about a smuggling operation but they weren't a part of the smuggling group.
What I've seen indicates that a person who receives a pardon can hold it in confidence. I suspect the DOJ practice of publicizing them is more due to modern laws regarding Federal actions and records than anything required to make the pardon effective. If charged with an offense covered by it the pardon is presented to the court to terminate the action.
Yeah, we usually call the broader usage amnesty, but it’s the same part of the Constitution that empowers all of this. It is a plenary power according to SCOTUS.
https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-history-of-the-pardon-power
Post a Comment