Question on 'Pardons' guess I could look it up but here goes anyway ... ha ...

[doublethink]

1. Wouldn't someone have to already been tried, convicted, found guilty of a crime ... prior to the pardon for the pardon to have affect? Isn't a 'pardon' a forgiveness ... for someone already legally found guilty of a crime?

2. So how can a pardon become retroactive to anyone who has to go to court in like say March 2021 for something they are eventually found guilty of a crime they did in like 2017? They were not found legally guilty until March or thereafter 2021. They were not legally guilty of anything before that date ... so how can such a prior arbitrary pardon be legal when such pardon was granted before they were found guilty of anything? Does that makes sense? Or is a pardon something that a President can give for any crime committed prior to the date it was given for any human being including like a mass murder discovered down the road? Can a pardon wash away all sins prior to the date of the pardon, that a person has committed whether discovered later on or not?

3. Okay I know State or Local justice systems would probably, hopefully overcome any of the above scenario on such crimes because pardons have no affect there but .... Ha listening to Rachel M. show in the background ... they are covering the same stuff ... uncharted territory ... too funny. Never-mind ... ha just brainstorming.

[unblock]

1. Acts are pardoned, not indictments or convictions

It's the date of the act (alleged offense) that matters.

Carter pardoned the draft dodgers so they could come back from Canada without fear of prosecution.

And of course Ford pardoned Nixon in advance of any charges.

[onenote]

2. Correct.

It's a popular claim here that one only needs a pardon if they've committed a crime. But not only does someone not need to have been convicted or even charged to receive and accept a pardon, pardons can be and are granted to remove the stigma on someone who may have been wrongly convicted or accused or even to prevent them from facing the possibility of being charged for an act that may or may not turn out to be criminal.

[doublethink]

4. Thanks for the response also ...

much appreciated, interesting. All the best.

[unblock]

6. indeed, much of the original founders' discussion on the topic centered around prosecutorial abuse

it wasn't about restoring justice long after a case had wound its way through the legal system and reached the wrong conclusion.

it was originally more about keeping prosecutors from harassing people with trumped-up charges or going after political opponents for the sake of politics.

really, the whole notion that a pardon requires a conviction is based on the fact that as a matter of tradition and practical convenience, pardons are usually reserved as a last resort. governors and presidents usually prefer to wait for the court system to do its job and see if they have to wade into the matter at all.

but it's just normal practice, it's not a requirement.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. Yep. People keep insisting accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.

That doesn’t square with one of the main reasons that power exists - to act as a check against prosecutorial abuse.

[unblock]

8. right. that one particularly doesn't make sense for those cleared by dna evidence after conviction.

[doublethink]

3. Thank you for the insight. Appreciated.

Yeah Nixon was never convicted of anything. Any insight on my O.P. if the whole 'convicted' criminal aspect was replaced by 'acts'? Would that all be forgiven retroactively also if discovered later on? Just learning thanks again.

[unblock]

5. any act covered by the pardon, so it depends on how it's worded.

a pardon might be worded very narrowly, so as to apply only to a specific incident, or it could be worded so as to cover any crime committed during donnie's presidency, or hell, even any crime committed at any point prior to the date of the pardon.

usually, though, pardons are worded fairly narrowly.