• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    No, pardons do not imply guilt.

    Pardons can be issued when someone is believed to be innocent of any wrongdoing.

    • HorreC@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      in what world do they issue pardons (To release (a person) from punishment or disfavor for wrongdoing or a fault: synonym: forgive. from dictionary.com) to people that were never even considered to have been at fault or done no wrong??

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        The dictionary definition is not the legal definition.

        A pardon can be issued to anyone, and it prevents any government punishment for the activities mentioned in the pardon.

        It does not matter who, if anyone, considers them “at fault”.

        • HorreC@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          https://legaldictionary.net/pardon/

          A pardon is a governmental decision to absolve an individual for a criminal conviction, often times freeing him from all or part of the punishment imposed at sentencing. Pardons are typically granted by the President, or by individual state governors, usually to absolve individuals, but may be granted, in certain circumstances, for groups of people. Federal pardons are granted by the President of the United States, and each state’s law dictates with whom the power to grant state pardons lies. To explore this concept, consider the following pardon definition.

          Seems like it does indeed imply there is a crime and punishment .

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Not according to the SCOTUS:

            The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.

            • HorreC@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 hour ago

              either before legal proceedings are taken

              that by itself says before they legal proceedings, stating that they should/could be charged with wrong doing. Not just for being good people, they are believed to be charged soon. If its a frivolous lawsuit it should be allowed to play out no need for a pardon in something that NO ONE THINKS YOU DID ANY WRONG. By granting the pardon you are saying that something is at least legally questionable and they could be charged. Again this all means that something that was illegal was going on and people can talk about that, even editorialize with this information and have a better root to believably with that the person was pardoned, so if there is no crime then they shouldnt have power to pardon anyone.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                57 minutes ago

                No, it does not say “if they are believed to be charged soon”.

                A pardon ends any possibility of charges. It does not matter if charges are imminent, theoretical, or even realistic. Likewise, a pardon does not mean “something is at least legally questionable and they could be charged.”

                The power to pardon is unlimited (except for impeachment). That means it can be issued for anything (except for impeachment). So if the President felt like it, it would absolutely be within his power to pardon you for the crime of killing Abraham Lincoln even though you weren’t alive at the time. He could pardon you for anything you might have done on New Years, even if everyone knows you didn’t do anything at all on New Years.

                • HorreC@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  54 minutes ago

                  So what was it issued for, if there is no crime at all, the president can just give you a hey you get one crime on me. And even in your thought process, they have to name it, what were the reasons given. Again these reasons would insinuate a crime was committed.

                  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    44 minutes ago

                    A pardon is issued to prevent any future punishment. It does not have to give any reasons and it does not have to acknowledge a crime was committed.

                    In our legal system, you are only considered guilty of something after conviction. So if a pardon prevents charges, then legally you were never guilty of anything.

                    Of course you are personally free to assume whatever you want. Some people assume only guilty people are arrested, others don’t make that assumption. You can assume only guilty people are pardoned, but others don’t make that assumption.