Read the article below, from Time For Kids on February 23rd, 2001. When you are done, answer the following question in a paragraph: Would you support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the Presidents' power to pardon? (to get full credit, 8 sentences are necessary; as always, extra credit for building on someone else's)
Pardon the Mess
By Nelida Gonzalez Cutler
Bill Clinton has been out of the White House for a month, but he's still front-page news. On his last day in office, Clinton issued 141 pardons. Under the Constitution, the President has the power to grant pardons, which officially forgive people for committing crimes.
Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, who had been convicted on a drug charge. He pardoned a former Cabinet member who had been found guilty of lying to FBI agents. And he pardoned one of the nation's most-wanted criminals.Marc Rich, 65, has spent the past 17 years living in Switzerland to avoid being put on trial in the U.S. The billionaire businessman was wanted for breaking the law by trading oil with Iran, an enemy of the U.S. at the time of the trades, and for breaking tax laws. Rich ran away and gave up his U.S. citizenship rather than face the prospect of spending years in prison. Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized the pardon. "The pardoning of fugitives stands our criminal-justice system on its head and makes a mockery of it," says New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.
Were Laws Broken?
Congress and the Justice Department are investigating the pardon. Last Thursday the Justice Department announced that it would begin a criminal investigation to find out whether laws had been broken when the pardon was granted. Investigators want to determine whether Rich's money somehow bought the pardon. Denise Rich, Marc Rich's ex-wife, asked President Clinton to pardon her former husband. She is a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton's and has given large sums of money to the Democratic Party, Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign and Bill Clinton's presidential library. Bill Clinton insists that "any suggestion that improper factors had anything to do with the decision are absolutely false."
Rich's pardon can't be undone. But some in Congress believe it is time to examine this unchecked presidential power. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wants a constitutional amendment to give Congress the right to overturn pardons.
Pardoning A President
On a Sunday morning in September 1974, President Gerald Ford stunned the nation by granting his former boss, Richard M. Nixon, a "full, free and absolute pardon." Nixon had been the President and had resigned the office just a month before in order to avoid impeachment. In 1972 workers for Nixon's re-election campaign had broken into rival headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, D.C. A committee from Congress recommended that Nixon be impeached for covering up the break-in and abusing his presidential powers. Without Ford's pardon, Nixon might have gone on trial. The investigation and resignation of Nixon had already caused a national crisis. "Only I, as President, have the constitutional power to shut and seal this book," said Ford.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments:
I think we should have pardons because we should be able to forgive you can’t hold something agents for whatever they have done forever.
I think we shouldnt get rid of pardons because what if someone actually isnt guilty and they are in jail. Also, we should be able to forgive someone for they actions and not to hold a grudge on them forever.
I think we souldn't get rid of pardons because everyone deserves a chance to get released from trouble. Another reason we shouldn't get rid of pardons is because the governor wouldn't be as busy and getting as much done, and or maybe he would have more time to acomplish more important things than granting pardons. I still believe we shouldn't get rid of pardons because EVERYONE deserves a chance to get out of trouble and loose penalty's! =D
I think they should get rid of pardons because as the saying goes "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. I feel this way because sure there is a chance they aren't really guilty but most of the time they are. Sure like
Bryar and Jared were saying you cant hold a grudge against someone forever. Also that you should be able to forgive someone for their actions. But in my opinion if they did do it they brought it upon themselves. If they don't go to jail they won't learn from it. They will still go on doing whatever it was they did because they weren't punished for it and basically don't know any better not to. If you do the crime you can't go scott free. Like I said earlier, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
If we dont have pardons we wontever be sorry for something we did and if were not ever sorry you wont ever know what is wrong and right in life and i think people like hearing a apoligy once in a while just to know someone is sorry
I think that we should get rid of the pardons because if some one has done somthing wrong u shoulnd ba able to hold it against them and also people she have the right to have questions to!
Yes, i would agree to take away the President's power to pardon. I would agree because if you are charged for something and you go to jail, then I believe that you have payed your dues. I don't think that just because the President says that you are pretty much free to go, that you can just forget about it. If you make a mistake and pay for it by going to jail then that should give you all the pardon you need. You shouldn't just get off like it never happened. Many times it has been a family member of the current President who gets pardoned for something they did. I don't think that that should be ok. Why if someone else served for the same crime and the same amount of time have to live with it for the rest of their live while you get pardoned by the President and then everything is ok? I know that live isn't fair, but if you have done something wrong you should pay for it. It's the only way you're going to learn. If you get it pardoned it automatically opens a door for it to happen again and you get pardoned again. This is why I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the President's power to pradon.
I do not think we should get rid of the Presidents power topardon. If someone breaks the law or does something wrong then yes they should be able to be forgiven. I agree with what Austyn F said that everyoone deserves a chance to get out of trouble. Honestly I think without some trouble makers then life would be boring. I am not saying let every single criminal go, but in certain cases then yes it sould be aloud. I also think that since he is the President he deserves rights that others do not have. This should inclue the right to pardon people. When people get into trouble they shouldbe punished, but they sometimes they should also have the right to me forgiven. Sometines crimes are mistakes and that does happen. Sometimes people are even innocent; that doesn't happen often, but it does. If the President wants to paardonsome I thhink he should be able to. In other words, no, USA should not get rid of the president's power to pardon.
I think you should be able to have pardons because the president should be able to decide if he wants someone in jail.
I do think that there should be pardons. I think this because it think that if you do the did the crime u should have to go to jail. Depending on whet you do. I also agree with will in what will said. But you should still be able to foigive them. They should not be in trouble for ever. I think that pardons are good and bad at the same time. But over all i think that they are good
I would not agree. He has total rights to pardon. If somethng is not fair and he knows it he should be able to let them off the hook. It's not like the president would just pardon someone if they commited a serious crime but if he thinks it's something stupid that they're in trouble for they he can let them go.
I think we should keep pardons because they forgive people and people are happy when they are forgiven and ,aybe by being forgiven they will think to never do that crime again. Also say the person was convicted for using drugs but they never acually used the drugs, then when they were forgiven all would be well with them so they wouldnt have to live with that on your record. Also, in another way I wouldnt want to have pardons because when someone did something really bad then why should they get forgiven for? For example, if a guy killed his wife and then got pardoned for doing it, that wouldnt be good because then he would get away with murder and most likely do it again. If we did have pardons who would know if it should get pardon or not. Would there be a law about pardons saying that if it was really bad then there would be a pardon? In the end I think that we shouldn't have pardons. This is because if someone did something bad that is there fault, they are the ones that caused the crime. They should learn from it and not do it again. I think criminals should get punished.
Also, I agree with Tia that the President should have the power taken away from him to give pardons.
I think that they should keep the presidents power to pardon.I think this because if u didn't want to go to a bloody gruesome war, that you have to kill people in would yoou want to do it? They only flee'd from the country because they just didnt have enough power to be able to do that so they moved to Canada. It would be horrible not being able to see your family for 10 years. They were drafted into the war they didn't have the choice they were just told that they had to do it. That is why i think we should keep pardons.
I thing that the president has the right to pardon people. If something isn't fair or with the constitution i think the president has the right to pardon people.
But it depends on the offense because if they did a real serious crime i don't think he should but if they made a small mistake or something not to big the president should be able to pardon them for specific reasons. I also agree with RJ and Austyn
I agree with adding the amendment to get rid of pardons by the President. I think that the pardons should be the jury’s job, not the President. I think this because you have more than one person’s say in the matter. Also, if the President personally knows the people who they would pardon, then it would be an unfair advantage. The Judicial Branch should be the branch that should be in charge of pardoning, not the Executive branch. I think this because with the Judicial branch, you have the jury to vote, which mean it’s much more fair that you have a vote to see if the criminal is being pardoned or not. For example, President Clinton pardoned a friend’s ex husband because they were friends and because she gave the Democratic Party a lot of money. I think that the pardoning job should be left to The Judicial Branch.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution saying the President can no longer pardon. I feel that the job of pardons should go to the judicial branch. The President doesn’t really have anything to do with the court system. Also the President could just pardon people he knows or doesn’t think did anything wrong. For example President Clinton made 141 pardons on his last day in office. He pardoned his brother, a member of the cabinet, and even a most-wanted criminal! If he had more opinions maybe he wouldn’t be able to get away with this. Now if this type of situation was brought to the Supreme Court they would have multiple opinions. Multiple opinions means that maybe a most-wanted criminal would be freed because the President says so. Just because I don’t think the President should get all the power of pardons doesn’t mean that I think that he shouldn’t have the power to approve the decision made by the Supreme Court. However the Supreme Court should be able to check this by being able to override the President if he doesn’t approve.
I think we shound not have pardons becuase if someone is guilty then its not fair. But it is good to have them becuase if its a fact that they did bad then its fine.
I think we should get ride of pardons because if you did a crime you should get in trouble. if you get pardoned you are above the law and that would go aginst the rule of law.so we should get ride of the right to pardon.
I think we should make amendments to the Constitution saying that the preseident cannot parden. My reason for this is because if you let a bad guy out of jail that truly is bad it can be catostrophic and he is just going to do what he did before again and again... Also think thats pardons are bad because hes letting people out of jail that have been punished for many years and they didi't even serve for there time that they should have served. This is why I think that having pardons is very bad and thats why we shoukd amend that privilage.
I domte think we should take away presidents power topardon. Because if some wone dose somthing wrong or amde a mistake. They should always daserv a second chance. And just because somone made a mistake dose not mean they will do it again because that was in the past. And that dose not meen they are bad people if they made a mistake.
Well I agree with everybody so im half and half of this ordeal. For exaple, (This is about keeping it.) Everybody always deserves a second chance even if its very bad because people can change like me because I always was a very bad kid always getting into trouble but since I learned from my mistakes and getting second chances I have just changes into a new person. (now the reason we shouldn't have this.)One reason we shoudn't have this is because some people get their second chance but they still do wrong things in which they should sadly be punished.These are my reasons why we should and sholdn't have pardons.
left a couple of spelling errors.
I personally don't agree with pardons because I believe EVERYONE should be able to get a third chance regardless of what crime has been committed. If you ask me it's absolutely ridiculous that someone who just happened to become the President that their word is more significant than everyone elses. In my opinion no ones word is more important than others.
I think we should have pardons because we should be able to forgive anyone, you can;t really hold a grudge forever
we should have pardons becuase if you are not guilty for the crime you are being accused of then why should you go to jail for it?
I think that we should get rid of pardons because you cant put someone in jail after doing something bad and take they out to have a second chance. It just isnt right. They arent even surving the time that they were suppose to surve in jail. The person that was in jail that was takening out for a second chance and ended up winning the case since they already did the crime before then most likely going to do it again.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution eliminating the president's power to pardon. I do not not think it is right to let someone who broke the law or comitted a crime to just pardon them. They should have to take a punishment because if the president just gives you a pardon you will probably think it is okay to commit the crime again. For example, when Clinton pardoned his brother from drug charge it is not fair to others who have been convicted of the crime. Also, it is not making the world a better place for just letting these people be let go and not have to go to jail. I agree with Cameron about how someone who just became a president is allowed to pardon someone from a big crime and how their word is better then someone elses word. I also agree with melissa and I think it should be left to the judicial branch. That is why I think the president should not be allowed to pardon.
I strongly believe pardons should no longer be an executive power, and should be a legislative power. Over the many years, presidents have abused this power way too much. Back in 1974 President Ford pardoned ex-president Nixon for causing a national crisis and abuse of his powers. Also President Clinton was guilty of overlooking pardons. He pardoned Marc Rich one of the U.S.A’s most wanted criminals and his ex-wife is friend of the Clintons. Also he pardoned his brother Roger who was convicted on drug charges, and a cabinet member who was guilty of lying to FBI agents. To end my comment pardons should be passed just like laws.
I don’t agree with pardons, if someone broke a law they should pay for what they did. They knew that they could get caught and they did it anyway so it’s no one’s fault but their own. What Bill Clinton did was really wrong and he should get punished for what he did. Just because someone does someone else a favor; doesn’t mean that you repay them by forgetting the crime they did. The president should have a say in this and not someone who isn’t even in office. Bill Clinton shouldn’t even have been able to do that because he’s not the President and he’s not even in office. His wife didn’t make it as president and know he’s trying to get attention by giving people pardons; that’s wrong. I’m not sure how he got into letting people’s pardons go but it wasn’t a smart choice of who let him do that.
I would support an amendment to the Constitution that eliminates the Presidents power to pardon because why should a criminal or someone who has broken the law be able to be pardoned by the President. You deserve a consequence if you have done something severe like committing a crime. It allows criminals to be let out free which would not be very good because its could very well be like letting a serial killer out of jail after killing a vast amount of people. It would just lead to the criminal causing more trouble and possibly more lives with it. I do agree with Kayley very much about this topic because she makes sense with what she says. I feel like the job to pardon should go to the judicial branch. The President doesn’t really have anything to do with the court system. The Presidents job is to enforce the laws.
I think that we should get rid of pardons because, then there would not be trouble at the white house. but at the same time i think that we should still have pardons so that we do not have any trouble in the white house.
I agree with Dylan that if someone commits a crime then they should be responsible for whatever they did. Just because someone is a friend of the president, he shouldn't pardon that person. The president isn't always a good person, and he isn't always free from corrupt. He can be blackmailed, he can be bribed. If a person who committed a crime got someone to bribe the president into pardoning him, he might just get pardoned. A president could also abuse that power in many other ways. I think it's stupid that Clinton issued 141 pardons, anyway. I would definitely support an amendment eliminating the right for the president to pardon.
I belive that that they should keep pardons. A part of me belives that we should get rid of them. I belive we should keep them because if someone is ecused of doing a crime that they didnt then they should be pardoned. But somethines some people should not be able to be pardons. I kind of belive that this is good and bad. I cant make up my mind. So i am going to have to gp with both answers. I do not have a final answer. I think both
I think that we should get rid of pardons. That’s because if someone committed a crime, then they should go to jail. I don’t think that people will be happy that they can get away with a crime because the president pardoned him or her. Also the people in jail probably won’t like it very much either. I think it is very unfair. The person who committed a crime could also do it again because they know they can get away with it. I think that Clinton kind of took advantage of pardons too. He issued 141 pardons! I definitely think that pardons should not be allowed.
I think there should be pardons because of two main reasons. First, the person being pardoned might be wrongly accused. There have been many people who have been sent to jail for crimes they didn’t commit. My other reason is every body deserves second chances. I agree with what Kyle Goldstein was saying. What if the person being pardoned was a relative and not just some random person? Would you want a family member to have a second chance? I know all of you would. Everyone should have second chances because everyone deserves one. An example of someone being pardoned was President Richard Nixon. Many citizens thought that it was wrong of President Ford to pardon him. President Ford didn’t think it would be good to have a former president in prison. That was a very controversial time.
I agree with all of the people that said that the president should have pardons. Beacause if the person committed a crime and they were put in jail, then that would be their punishment. I mean, two wrongs don't make a right. ( but TWO RIGHTS MAKE A LEFT! )
Beacuse death row is just killing people ( i.e. if they murdered someone ) then that would just be doing to them what they did the the dead person. I'm not saying that murder is right, but also death row is just giving them what they did to someone else.
i think that we should keep pardons, because even though people have done something wrong, then they should be able to have a fresh start. they should be forgiven for what they have done. but even with pardons, they should have to serve for as many years as they need to, after a reasonable amount of time, they should be able to forget what they have done and get a fresh start
I think that we should not get rid of pardons. I agree with Austyn F. is saying that everyone deserve a second chance. Okay, so if someone committed a second crime, then just don’t pardon them. It’s as simple as that. And plus, what if someone is accused guilty of a crime, but honestly and sincerely didn’t do anything. This would be a way for them to be let off or so. They would be able to go home to their families and live a happy life. To think that they could have been living a life in jail while they know they didn’t do anything and their family is suffering because of it. Getting rid of pardons just wouldn’t be the right thing to do.
I think that we should keep pardons. Everyone should be able to have a second chance. But I also think that there should be limitations to pardons. For example, if someone was sent to jail for murder they should not be able to have a pardon. I agree with Mike L when he said that someone might have been wrongly accused of a crime. I also agree with Tommy that if someone has committed a second crime then they shouldn't be pardoned.
I think don't think we should have pardons because crimes are horrible and I agree with Briana A., if someone committed a crime they should go to jail. We have trails an i DON'T think if someone committed a crime they should just get away with it, NO way they shouldn't. It would be scary for a criminal to get away with what they did, If it was like a really bad crime, for example someone brook into someones house, now that would be scary. It would make most people worry. I mean everyone should get a second chance but not if someone committed a crime.
I believe that we should take away the power to pardon. Much like what Brianna said, presidents could take advantage of this power and pardon anyone that they see as a friend or as a powerful ally. We don't want to let guilty people off, and I don't think that 141 people were wrongly accused, and only President Bill Clinton could see that. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wants a constitutional amendment to give Congress the right to overturn pardons. I totally agree with this, if the president has the power to pardon, congress should have the check to deny pardons. One president could be corrupt, but I don't think every representative or senator in congress tries to take advantage of their power.
I think that we should keep pardons as a privilege of the president. I do think though that a law should be passed that Congress can overturn a presidents pardon. This is because in the past, presidents have miss used the power to pardon. Not only because of this, but also so that Congress can have a say in who is pardoned. Also I think pardons are a good thing if the accused person is not guilty, they can be pardoned from there crime. If pardons are taken away, many people who are innocent could possibly be put in jail for no reason. Even though presidents take advantage of pardons they need them to also make them stay fair. Pardons are what get certain innocent people out of trouble and I think getting rid of them would be the wrong thing to do.
Sorry this is my comment, forgot to put my name.
I think that we should take away the presidents power to grant pardons. I think this because if someone commits a crime that has hurt other people in some way even if its not physically but emotionally and they some how get pardoned by the president, the people that were hurt by this person, basically would have been ignored. This is not a fair way to deal with crimes. I think that if a person does something that is illegal there should be a consequence. There should never be a free pass for someone that has broken the law. Say if someone committed a crime like drug dealing and they were arrested but then the president decides that what he did wasn’t that bad and pardons him. This won’t teach the person anything as far as we know that same person could go out right after court and start selling drugs again just because they know they could be forgiven for it. I agree with Hannah when she said that Bill Clinton should never have given out those pardons. But there is another side where someone could be wrongly accused of a crime and having pardons would help them in that case. So my opinion? Don’t give the power to give pardons to the president, give it to the jury in the courts.
I agree that they should keep pardons because, what if somebody was accused of something they didn't do? What if someone was accused of murder, but they didn't murder anyone, but they just put them on death row anyways? Then they would just be killing an inoccent person.
I think that we should get rid of pardons. I think that because you can't really just forgive someone for a crime. For example, I wouldn't forgive some random guy for murdering a family member of mine. That is something that you should be punished for. If you commit a crime, you should go to jail. I also agree with Briana and Josephine. The president shouldn't take advantage of this power by pardoning someone he knows. Its pretty unfair. I also agree with Dylan on how the president could be letting a horrible criminal free.
I support the admendment to get rid of the President pardoning people. I don't think it's fair that someone gets to get out of jail and get a second chance. It's stupid, they commited the crime they have to get the punishment. Their shouldn't be people who get pardoned for commiting crimes, even if it's something simple or something big like murders or something. Nobody should be allowed to get away with whatever they did, no matter what. If a person gets out of jail from a pardon from the President then he'll just think he can do whatever he wants because the President will let him out. He'll think he's superior to people and keep doing what he's doing. This is why I don't think it's right that the President has the power to pardon.
I think that the president should be able to pardon but only if others think it's fair. For example, if his best friend killed a bunch of people, that shouldn't be pardoned because a lot of people would vote agenst this. But, if it's a small crime that most people would forgive, it should be allowed. I agree with Austyn F. because everyone deserves a chance but I think it's fair that certain crimes could be overruled by the people.
Honestly, i don't really know if i'm on the side of allowing the president to pardon people or not. The reason why i think this is because i think that everyone should be able to get a second chance without a doubt. But on the other hand if the president is pardoning people from the crimes they commit then thats really unfair. Only certain people that the president chooses will be pardoned and what if their is someone out their who is going to jail and they really are guilty? I mean, i know that like 98 percent of the time the jury and lawyers and everything know what they're doing but theirs still that teeny tiny 2 percent. They could always make a mistake. I also think that if someone broke the law then they should be punished. It's the only way that they will learn from their mistakes and not make them again. I guess im kind of leaning toward banning the president from pardoning but im still half and half. Babye =]
I agree with alli.I believe this because it is allowing people who know the president to freely commit crimes. This is like Bill Clintons brother getting of drug charges this wouldnt happen if pardons were banned. What bill clinton did was wrong having 141 pardons on his last day of office is ridiculus. I would absulutly suppurt a amendment againts pardons.
i think that they should not get rid of the pardons because say if someone robed a store and falsely accused a person. they would have to ask for a pardon.then the person would forgive them and go on with his life. but if we gorid of this that would not happen he would be wasteing the years of his life in prison for something he did not do.
I THINK ALL U PEOPLE THAT SAID THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARDON ARE WRONG.. I THINK NOBODY CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE THE PRESIDENT AT ALL.. TAKING AWAY SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN PRETTY SUCCESFUL FOR THE PAST WHATEVER YEARS IS A BAD IDEA. I SAW THIS THING ON TV AND THIS GUY WAS LOCKED UP FOR HIS WHOLE LIFE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T GET A PARDON.. IT TURNED OUT HE WAS INNOCENT!!!!! HE ALSO HAD A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SUPPOSED CRIME.. I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO PARTON PEOPLE!!!
I would not support that amendment because even though he did abuse the power, a bit too much, that doesn’t mean that the other Presidents will do it. To take it away from all the there President that lead up in our future isn’t a very good thing, because future ones might not abuse the power. Although I do think that an amendment, saying something like, the President has to ask for congress support in the pardon, before granting it to the person. I think that will limit the Presidents power, in granting pardons, but not too much to make him/her or the people unhappy. Another type of amendment that we could make is something like, there should be a limited number to the pardons. I think this so that the President doesn't take it too far, and has to learn to choose carefully and think ahead.
I agree with Annie O, when she says that she thinks that we should have a limit to pardons.
I believe that we should limit pardon. This may help the whole USA. Ty controlling what we need to do. and how we need to do it. So if we limit the pardons then all of the USA well be kept in peace. But if we raise then then every well go crazy because they don't know what to do.
I do not agree with the power of the President to grant pardons. If a person does something wrong, why shouldn’t they go to jail? If they are not punished they will probably commit a crime again thinking that they will get pardoned. As it said in the article, this power isn’t really under any control. The President can grant as many pardons as he wants unchecked. President Clinton granted 141 pardons in one day! Also, it is not fair that the President is able to give pardons. I agree with Katie that if two people committed the exact same crime and got the exact same time in jail for it, it would be unfair for one person to get out of jail just because they know the President. What’s the point of even having a judicial branch if the President can pardon anyone he wants? He can just decide if the person gets punished or not. I think the amendment should be made to the Constitution that the President should no longer be able to grant pardons.
I would most definitely support the amendment to the Constitution eliminating the President's power to pardon. The article said on his last day of office, President Bill Clinton granted 141 pardons. I think that for just one day, way too many people are getting away with their crimes. Even though they have served their time in jail and paid a debt if needed, it just seems to me that a crime is a crime. The harm is done. And that harm could have left another family or individual struggling physically and financially? So the President is going to forgive the criminal and not going to help out the other person struggling? That doesn't seem fair at all! Some people may disagree and say that they served their time and they should be forgiven. But if so many crimes are being pardoned, criminals must think that after they are forgiven, they can go back to what they were doing before...just because the President pretty much gave them the "OK". I like what Sarah W said and that if pardons should remain at all, the right should be given to the Judicial Branch. The President doesn't have much to do with the crimes. It is the judicial branch that deals with all of that. A most wanted criminal shouldn't be freed and forgiven of his crime because the President said so (nicely put, Sarah). Maybe the President and Supreme court should discuss the more important issues to be pardoned if necessary. These are the reasons why I would support the amendment that the President's power to pardon should be eliminated.
I think that we should get rid of pardons. That’s because if someone committed a crime, then they really should go to jail. I don’t think that people will be happy that they can get away with a crime because the president pardoned him/her. Also the people in jail probably won’t like it very much either. Everybody would probably be pretty upset because it's not really fair. The person who committed a crime would probably do it again because they know they can get away with it again. I think that Clinton kind of took advantage of pardons too. He issued 141 pardons. To me it's just not the right thing to do. Like when little kids fight with their siblings and the one that started the fight got away with it. The other kid isn't going to be too happy, i bet everybody knows how that feels. That is why I definitely think that pardons should not be allowed.
I do not agree that the president should have the power to grant pardons. I think this because if you commit a crime you should be punished not let of the hook. Think about it what if Saddam Hussein had some relationship with the president and was pardoned. So now we have a killer on the loose because the president wanted to forgive him. The only was you could be pardoned would be if the president had some kind of relationship to you. I agree with Clara and Katie when they said that if two people are sent to jail for the same amount of time and for the same crime it is not fair if one of them gets of the hook because the president knows them and wants to grant them a pardon. With this rule saying that the president can pardon someone it gives more power to the executive branch. The judicial branch has no control whether or not the pardons are unconstitutional. I think that an amendment to the constitution should be made saying that the President does not have the right to grant pardons. Last if the idea that the president can grant pardons to anyone he wants go unchanged i think that they should try to get some control over it. I mean 141 pardons thats ridiculous. Maybe they can't pardon without the consent of the judicial branch.
I think that the president should be able to pardon people but only if he has a really good reason and it is approved by the courts and/or the Congress. I agree with a lot of my classmates that people that commit really serious crimes like murder should be punished and should not be pardoned. It is not fair to the people because if someone who is a murderer got pardoned it would be unsafe for people to have that person wandering around. Also, it is not fair to people who do commit crimes and who serve their time and learn their lesson. I think President Ford did have a good reason for pardoning Ex-president Nixon. He wanted the country to move forward and he felt that if Nixon was put on trial it would just make things worse for the country. I think that the courts and the Congress would have agreed that his decision was a good one. So now you can see why there needs to be a good reason for pardoning someone.
I would ratify the Constitution to stop the president's pardons, like Kim said. Also like Bryar and Mairead said that if someone commits a crime and the court thinks that they are innocent and one of the suspects is in jail, is not fair even if it is obvious who is the guilty one. With what Kim said about how "even though they have served their time in jail and paid a debt if needed, it just seems to me that a crime is a crime. The harm is done. And that harm could have left another family or individual struggling physically and financially?" I 100% agree with her. Also when she said about that statement thatt the president just can't forgive someone, it just isn't right. Also her statement about how the president isn't the only one who deals with crimes, he shouldn't be the only one who has say in it. It just isn't fair, for the suspects in court and even the Congress since the three branches of government should be equal as possible. Honestly, with how I look at the power split in the legislative and executive branches, they are pretty close to equal. This is why I think that a president's pardons should be taken out.
Its hard to think that Bill Clinton just got up that day thinking he was going to grant over a hundred pardons that day. Someone is doing something to change his mind because 141 is just not real.
With this particular question, I’m caught in the middle. I agree with what Amy had to say. I believe that depending on the crime, people should get a chance to be forgiven. This all depends on how many times a person has caused a crime, or how serious of the crime. If somebody has murdered someone, then why should they NOT go to jail? If it’s a person that has been pretty much a good, responsible, honest, reliable person their whole lives and they commit a crime that’s not severe, can’t they get the chance to redeem themselves? On another note, I don’t think that Presidents should grant pardons to any criminal. If a President has any relation (blood or not) to a criminal, they shouldn’t just grant a pardon to that person just because of that one reason. I’m not sure about who posted this idea, but I agree with them, even though Clinton did grant too many pardons, or not as many as he should have, who knows if future Presidents will do the same thing? It seems that not a lot of Presidents failed with granting pardons, and there are a few that were the exceptions. So maybe Presidents aren’t such a bad job with pardons. I do believe that Congress should have “a constitutional amendment to give Congress the right to overturn pardons.” Who knows for sure how future Presidents will act? I do believe one thing: Presidents should be able to get the chance to grant pardons, with some limitations.
I would agree to take away the President's power to pardon. because if you are charged and you go to jail, then obviously you screwed up. And u have to learn to deal with whatever consequences you receive whether they are good or bad. Then hopefully whomever committed the crime will learn from it. Its part of life. You dont get second chances on life. Your the one who got yourself there, and thats your problem, its not a mess that someone else can clean up for you.
I think we souldn't get rid of pardons because everyone deserves a chance to improve and fix what they have done wrong. Also i think that the president should be able to pardon people. People should only be alowed to pardon but only if they have a really good reason and it is approved by the courts and/or the Congress. I agree people who commit crimes like murder should be punished.
I believe that the president should be allowed to pardon, but with the permission of the judicial branch. This way, he or she would be able to pardon a person without making the wrong decision. It also is a part of checks and balances. Also, if we didn’t have pardons, the jails of the country would be twice as filled as they are now and the courts would be twice as busy. It’s kind of a chain reaction.
But, on the other hand, we should not have pardons. Clinton pardoned his brother, and that’s kind of suspicious to me. I mean, yeah, it’s his brother… big deal. But, what would happen if presidents started following suit and pardoned their loved ones or relatives? It would turn into a country full of lies. But, this can easily be fixed by looking at the situation at hand more closely and have two branches agree upon a decision.
Last, I agree with Clara about the fact that guilty people could be excused from a lifetime in jail! If they’re innocent and are declared guilty, it means that it isn’t over! That person could also be innocent at the same time by having the president pardon him/her. It makes you wonder what the country is really doing about crimes and situations like this.
I think they shouldn't release pardons because some people will act like they learned their lesson but when they get released they just go back to doing stupid things again. Also people won't care as much if they break the law because they will think of it as oh this is ok we can just get out without any punishment. That is why I think there shouldn't get rid of pardons.
I don't think that pardons should be granted. I would support a bill stating that a President's power to pardon should be eliminated. I would do this because there are so many ways that a President could go corrupt, like Clinton, Nixon, and Ford. If some rich person donated a lot of money to your party, and did something seriously wrong, then you wouldn't want to put them in jail because they might stop donating. I agree with Tia when she said that, "...just because the President says that you are pretty much free to go, that you can just forget about it." If the President likes someone, or is their relative or friend, they could pardon them just because of that reason. Other "unimportant" people to the President wouldn't get that kind of mercy. It is unfair.
I think that they should take away the power to pardon. I think this because if someone did a crime they should be held responcible for their actions. In very few cases the person convictid of their crime will be not guilty. But if they find proof that he did not do the crime they will go to trial to mabie reinstate their decision. I agree with Tia that the presedent can just say "here your free to go".
I'm torn quite frankly on this issue. I don't think that it's right for the President to be able to pardon anyone he wants all will-nilly. But I also think that having a system to pardon people is important. So I'm thinking that there should be a system where the President presents a pardon, and a board of some sort debates it, just so there's a second opinion. But I don't think that it should be to regulated, because having a board with too many people with differing opinions will never let anything through. The reason I say this was because Bill Clinton pardoning his brother Roger from drug charges seems a little fishy, but there may be some reasons that actually are valid. So yes I think that there should be a system of pardons that has to go through a board of people before coming into effect. Also these people should not by appointed by the President.
I dont think that we should get rid of the presedent to be able to pardon anyone cuz if someone isnt guilty they shouldnt have to go to jail if they didnt do anything.
i wrote the one above this one
I agree with sarah W., I think the power should go to the judicial branch of our government. The president could mist use his power. And just pardon anyone he knows or is a fan of. There have been presidents out there who have pardoned family members and friends, even if they did something horrible. If the judical Branch had the power, im sure they would use it alot more aproprit.
i totally agree with kim, i think that we should take away the presedints right to pardo.i think this becuase hes the Presedent, i mean he shouldnt even be doing anything bad in the first place where he has to go to jail. He is the leader of are whole country, and shouldnt be going to jail or doing anything illegal, and cliton shouldnt have had 141 times to pardon, that a lot. or cominting a crime and then still be able to be our presedent! that what i think and i compleylt agree with kim and taylor.
I agree 100% with Taylor White because i thinks its ok to take away the Presidents power to pardon.if you knew your doing sometyhing wrong,and that you know theres going to be a consequence and you only going to hurt yourself.So you shouldnt do it.Pardons are not that great for pardon because if the president pardons you,you have to do it to everyone who goes to court.or its being bias because you picking your favorites and only letting some people pardon.If they dont take it away,than theres no sence to go to court if they just let you go with out any punnishment.
I agree with Jordan, the President has the right to pardon people, if someone committed a minor crime, they should be able to be pardoned, if the President says so. However, if they did something really bad, such as murder or something, they should not be pardoned.
It is roung to have a prez that is a criminal,theaf,crimanal to be a leader a law macker A PRESIDENT.People nead a prez
i htink that getting rid of pardons may be a good idea. because if the president has a old friend in tha army that killed someone he may have them pardoned because they are his friend. Also their is a law stating noone is above or below the law but the president has the ability to get people out of jail for free. dont you think that id he has that ability and everyone else in the world doesnt thats above the law. i think that pardons are not a good idea and may cause lots of trouble in the hands of a crazed president. Also a president could pardon someone and they could strike again at some point in their life making them a repeat offender. The pardons system only cause trouble.
I think that we should give people a second chance. Everyone deserves a sencond chance but it also depends on the crime. If it was a murder than of course we shouldnt let them out. If it was breaking into a house than maybe because they didnt hurt anyone only there things. And also ifs its under the presdents judgement he can fiuger out whetever or not to let them out. But that also depends on the president we have.
I think we should keep pardons because they forgive. People like to be forgivem is makes them happy.By being forgiven they will think to never do the crime again. Also say the person was convicted for using drugs but they never acually used the drugs, then when they were forgiven all would be well with them so they wouldnt have to live with that on your record. Also, in another way I wouldnt want to have pardons because when someone did something really bad then why should they get forgiven for? For example, if a guy killed his own child and then got pardoned for doing it, that wouldnt be great because then he would get away with murder and most likely do it again. If we did have pardons who would know if it should get pardon or not.But know that I think about it we shouldn't have pardons. Because if someone did something bad that is there fault, they are the ones that caused the crime. They should learn from it and not do it again. I think criminals should get punished because they were the ones who did it in the first place.
The president should not have the right to pardon. I think this because if you pardon people and then they do another crime, that sounds wrong. If you kill one person and I pardon you, you're going to kill another person. I think that this power should be removed, even from the President of the United States.
I think we should get rid of pardons because if we pardon someone from doing a crime then they'll do it again. For example if somebody kills another person and they are pardoned then they'll probably just do it again.
buy my burgers!
I like the idea of pardons because what if someone didn't do something as bad as someone else, and they got in the same amount of trouble. If there WAS pardons then the one who didn't do as bad would get it's punishment as deserved. Sometimes I think Bill Clinton pardoned his brother. But I don't think he would have pardoned him if it wasn't his brother. Also I think that I would support this amendment because I think pardons can affect the way that people (like Bill Clinton) pardon people.
Post a Comment