Pardon Power of the President - Essay Example

Pardon Power of the President In any country, President of that has the right to pardon or forgive an individual, an entity or company for a crime that it might have committed or not even have been associated with the same in a direct or indirect capacity. This pardon means that the offender or the suspect is cleared of any charges and is given a Presidential forgiveness for the penalty or fine which was linked with the suspect/offender before. This pardon in all essence is granted by the chief sovereign of the state or country. It could also be a church authority as well. In the current times, pardons and reprieves are given to individuals who have manifested their commitment towards the betterment of the society and the state as well as fulfilled their promises in line with the ever changing needs and wants of the people living within that very state or country so to speak. Furthermore, pardons are also granted to those individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and who were mistakenly taken in for someone else. (Strauss, 2000) This kind of pardon suggests that the state takes the bearing for admitting its fault which lies in the wake of the guilt that has developed on its shoulders over a period of time, thus the state does not quite come to terms with what could be the ethically correct manner and goes for the power regime more than anything else. Hence the offer to pardon is refused in such cases and the execution orders or life imprisonment terms are continued along the last sentence which was made in such a case. Within the United States, the pardon power is provided to the President of the US. This is given to him by the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2 which says that the President has the power to grant reprieves as well as pardons for different offenses which are made against the US, but the same stands null and void where the cases entail issues of impeachment. Hence, the Supreme Court of US has discussed this act of the Constitution at length time and again so as to decrease the amounts of ambiguities which might just arise with the passage of time. (Dinan, 2003) The Supreme Court has also discussed conditional pardons, commutations related with the sentence and the conditional commutations as well as fines for forfeitures, remissions, amnesties and respites, etc. Federal pardon petitions within the United States are forwarded to the President of the United States who then has the right to grant or deny such a request that has been sent to him. In typical circumstances, the applications related with these pardons and reprieves are studied in order to find out the non binding recommendation which is provided in essence by the Office of the Pardon Attorney. The Office of the Pardon Attorney is basically an official that comes under the Department of Justice. It is a fact that must be addressed here that since the year 1977, there have been an average of 600 pardon or reprieve requests annually out of which 10 percent have been granted. However this thing is significant to understand here that the pardons and reprieves are different in nature and vary from case to case and administration to administration. A case in point is the fact that within the US, there have been far less pardons since the World War II then there used to be before it. (Corwin, 1957) Talking about the impartiality and the natural self of the pardon power provided by the President of the US, it was always an issue right from the very beginning. There was controversy surrounding the whole issue and this needs to be discussed in the proper contexts. A number of anti-Federalists were of the view that since they knew very well what the royal abuses brought with them to the pardon power in Europe, hence they were not in favor of the pardon power to be implemented within the US in the first place. They warned time and again that the same could happen within the US as well. With the passage of time, a number of pardons have been controversial to start with and we can easily speak about the first official pardon which was granted by the President George Washington to the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion. The argument raised against the use of pardon power by the President is that a number of these pardons are for the sake of political mileage of different parties more than anything else and this is a case that needs to be studied in the political and judicial contexts more than anywhere else. A Presidential pardon could be made at any moment the President steps into his office and after the offense has been commissioned and brought to the notice of the President who then decides whether or not the offender/suspect deserves leniency. A pardon can be rejected at any stage of the pardon process offered to the President of the state and this is officially recognized by the courts of the state. Accepting that a pardon could be given is also the acceptance that there has been considerable guilt on the part of the judicial process and that the courts are not working to their best abilities. Thus it becomes an exercise surrounded by difficulty and pressure, though in an indirect manner for the President of the state when he has to decide whether or not to grant a state pardon or reprieve for that matter. As for the United States, the pardon power of the President stands extendable to the offenses which are cognizable under the US Federal Law. Similarly, the governors of the states in the US have the right to grant pardons and reprieves under the criminal law provided by the state itself. In some states of the US, this right is committed to an appointed board or agency and in some cases to different boards as well as the governor in hybrid set ups. (Crockett, 2000) Talking about different countries of the world, we find that the state pardon within France is provided by the President of France, who is indeed the solitary judge related with propriety of the disposition. In Germany, the right to pardon is in division between the federal and the state level. In Iran, the Supreme Leader has the power to pardon an individual as well as offer clemency rights. (Ruckman, 1997) The President of the Republic of Italy has the right to pardon while within United Kingdom, the same is a royal prerogative which lies at the mercy of the monarch prevalent within the United Kingdom. Similarly, in South Africa the President has the right to offer a pardon and same is the case within Ireland, where the President of Ireland holds the very same responsibility and right as provided to him by the Constitution of Ireland, Art 13, Section 6. As far as the Christian theology is concerned, a pardon is made apparent due to the result of forgiveness which has been given by God through the help and facilitation of Jesus. This means that under the Christian perspective, the pardoned person is cleared of his sins and thus has a new birth altogether. (Elvin, 1998) Thus the Christian angle merits its own place in the worshippers of this faith and indeed the religion we know by the name of Christianity. All said and done, the right to pardon an individual rests with the supreme authority of the state and the same must remain the same so as to have a balanced measure of the pardons given to individuals all over the world. WORKS CITED P.S. Ruckman, Jr. “Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993),” 27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271, 1997 Corwin, Edward S. The President, Office and Powers: 1787-1957, History and Analysis of Practice and Opinion, New York University Press, 1957 Dinan, John. The Pardon Power and the American State Constitutional Tradition, Polity Vol. 35, 2003 Strauss, Peter L. The President and Choices Not to Enforce, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 63, 2000 Elvin, John. Pardon Me, America, Insight on the News, Vol. 14, 1998 Crockett, David A. The President as Opposition Leader, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 30, 2000 Word Count: 1,284 Read More