Talk:Federal pardons in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Randy Randalman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link dump[edit]

Here we go.

There's a lot of good and interesting content in these links that we could (and should) incorporate into this article. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could/should also discuss "un-pardons". W. Bush and Grant, apparently:

It's also worth noting that one of the references used in the article is especially thorough: <http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2444&context=wmlr>. There's plenty more to draw on from here. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

last sentence in "Controversies" section: "The pardon was also unique because it pardoned a public official for misconduct committed in the course of his official duties."[edit]

"unique" means "being the only one...being without a like or equal...distinctively characteristic". Unique | Definition of Unique by Merriam-Webster what about Ford's pardon of Nixon? Nixon was a public official who "committed misconduct in the course of his official duties". and Bush 1's "pardon of six Reagan administration officials accused or convicted in connection with the iran contra affair"? trump's pardon of arapio is not unique "because it pardoned a public official for misconduct committed in the course of his official duties." Peretired (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peretired. Davemck changed the "unique" wording in this edit. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of a pardon[edit]

Hi. In this edit, Enthusiast01 added the sentence "The beneficiary of a pardon needs to accept the pardon and acknowledge that the crime did take place." However, pardons have been issued to people who are dead, for example Henry Ossian Flipper. How do we reconcile this? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The above addition describes the process and requirements needed for a person to apply for a pardon through the office of the pardoning attorney. This is one method for a person to request a pardon, but not a limitation of the broad power of the president. The president can issue pardons without ever having used this process. This statement is misleading in the introduction of the article. It belongs lower in the article under "modern process". Dspark76 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance as admission of guilt[edit]

Hello. This sentence is present in the article "The Supreme Court stated in Burdick v. United States that a pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt,' and acceptance of a pardon is a confession to such guilt." However, interpretation of the relevant passage in the case brief is a matter of open debate among constitutional law experts, and thus I'd argue that this sentence constitutes speculation which shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. If it's considered desirable to retain it, it should probably cite an authoritative source on that interpretation and make a note that this is the interpretation of the cited source and hasn't been tested in court. To the best of my knowledge, there are no cases which actually have tested this in a substantial way, for instance a civil case using the acceptance of the pardon to argue for liability, however if one can indeed be found, this should be cited as well, with the sentence left unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitriye98 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to agree with the above unsigned comment by the inactive user Dimitriye98, but then I re-examined. While law in the United States follows conventions from "English Common Law", Wikipedia doesn't! The sentence says "The Supreme Court stated..." It does not express an opinion on the validity of such a law, whether it can be enforced or not. It is a factual matter that the Supreme Court stated such in Burdick v. United States. It does not matter if the "interpretation of the relevant passage" is subject to debate, it was stated, and the sentence mentions that fact. If Dimitrye98 or anyone else wants to add a sentence of two mentioning that it is a matter of open debate, they are welcome to do so, but the statement is citable, obviously, and it's an important issue, that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt.Tumacama (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, the current state of the article prior to my most recent edit had replaced the text I had trouble with with a misquote of the opinion, which was still better than having a paraphrase in the article text. I've rectified that misquote with a direct copy-paste from the opinion and properly cited that, so hopefully this issue is finally at rest. I probably should've stated my case better, as the opinion says that a pardon carries implicitly "acceptance of a confession of guilt." It may be semantic, but I feel that's not the same thing as a confession of guilt directly. Either way, I'm satisfied with the text as is, and I feel rectifying a misquote in the manner I have is justified to do without discussion. If anyone feels otherwise, I imagine the discussion will continue here. Dimitriye98 (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions[edit]

Hi. The definition of a pardon is described as "an executive order granting clemency for a conviction". Yet there is no language in referenced footnote from Ex Parte Garland that a pardon is in fact an "executive order". Nor I can find anything clarifying a pardon to be synonymous with what is officially known to be an "executive order" (signed, written, and published directive from the President of the United States and numbered consecutively). Can someone further clarify whether this is an accurate definition and if not, whether it could be phrased differently to avoid confusion? el80ne 17:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pardon's ability to halt criminal proceedings and prevent indictment has not been tested in court?[edit]

"In rarer cases, such as the pardon of Richard Nixon, a pardon can also halt criminal proceedings and prevent an indictment, though this has not been tested in court"

Is this really true? To use the given example, as I understand it, Ford's pardon of Nixon *was* tested in court, in Murphy v. Ford[1] ...

I guess we could move the goalposts to "has not been ruled upon by the SCOTUS", but it certainly seems to have been tested in court.

Also, Ex parte Garland [2] definitely seems to have tested that as well, by the SCOTUS this time.

"9. 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. The power is not subject to legislative control."

dougmc (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/390/1372/1966699/
  2. ^ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/

The sections "Against self-pardon" and "For self-pardon" seem very lopsided[edit]

The text under "Against self-pardon" isn't really emphasizing arguments against self-pardon at all - it cites some arguments (not all) and proceeds immediately to discredit them. In contrast, the text under "For self-pardon" cites arguments for self-pardon, without any counterarguments. Moreover: when considering both sections as one (as both seem to have been written by a single person), they really do seem like what should have been a single section titled "Why self-pardon is allowed", because that's really what they say. Given that, in reality, there's a major question mark regarding whether self-pardon is allowed, I find these two sections, taken as a whole, to be suitable for an opinion column and not for a term in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.82.105 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the "Self Pardons" portion of the article does not meet the Neutral Point of View standard and added a header to the page. Sean0987 (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Sean0987[reply]
As there have been no arguments submitted here in favour of the disputed wording, I have restored the section to its condition as at "Revision as of 16:41, 12 January 2021". Alekksandr (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_pardons_in_the_United_States&oldid=1207196799"