Sentencing v. Mercy
I think it is notable that the recent congressional hearings regarding the president's use of the pardon power included no experts on pardons. The pardon attorney, from the U.S. Department of Justice was present, to provide background and technical information. But he certainly does not qualify as someone who has done scholarly research on the topic.
The hearings were notable for their discussion of federal sentencing, by sentencing experts. They clearly had a beef with federal sentencing guidelines, in general, and took the position that they were too rigid /severe. If one accepts as basic premise that all such guidelines are the creation of Republican administrations, then any Republican president who uses the pardon power as an act of mercy, in the face of those guidelines, is certainly an inconsistent "hypocrite."
While the anecdotes about particular cases are interesting (Rita), it seems to me that the sentencing folks have had their day and now it is time to move on and address these questions -none of which were asked at the hearing:
Should the public explanations that presidents provide - if they even bother to provide them, which they usually don't - have (or be given) the status of formal policy? Should that policy then be implemented retroactively, to all similarly circumstanced individuals? Should presidents refuse to exercise clemency where 1) their reasoning is not in line with interpretations of current sentencing guidelines or 2) they are not willing to apply individual clemency retroactively, to all similarly situated persons. And, finally, if the answer to any of the above is "yes," why even have the pardon power to begin with? Why not just trust the judiciary to always be right and run free, unrestrained by all of this silly checks and balances stuff?
The hearings were notable for their discussion of federal sentencing, by sentencing experts. They clearly had a beef with federal sentencing guidelines, in general, and took the position that they were too rigid /severe. If one accepts as basic premise that all such guidelines are the creation of Republican administrations, then any Republican president who uses the pardon power as an act of mercy, in the face of those guidelines, is certainly an inconsistent "hypocrite."
While the anecdotes about particular cases are interesting (Rita), it seems to me that the sentencing folks have had their day and now it is time to move on and address these questions -none of which were asked at the hearing:
Should the public explanations that presidents provide - if they even bother to provide them, which they usually don't - have (or be given) the status of formal policy? Should that policy then be implemented retroactively, to all similarly circumstanced individuals? Should presidents refuse to exercise clemency where 1) their reasoning is not in line with interpretations of current sentencing guidelines or 2) they are not willing to apply individual clemency retroactively, to all similarly situated persons. And, finally, if the answer to any of the above is "yes," why even have the pardon power to begin with? Why not just trust the judiciary to always be right and run free, unrestrained by all of this silly checks and balances stuff?
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 7:14 AM
<< Home