[lbriner]

Someone might have already pointed it out but for me, the sentence of RA is not the main issue, the issue is allowing a single person to stamp through an entire legal system and undermine all of the time and money that is invested in it, even if that person is a president.

I suspect that the idea originally was to give some safety valve but if it is used more than a few times by a President, it makes a mockery of it and it should be removed as a power. How can a President ever decide that the entire legal process is flawed and their opinion is right? If the sentence was too long then change the sentencing guidelines.

[contravariant]

The main failure here is the failure of the elections system to elect anyone reasonable.

On its own it is not that bad an idea for someone who carries a mandate of the majority of the population to be able to grant pardons.

[falcor84]

Why is it not a bad idea? Isn't it then just an example of Tyranny of the Majority?

Taken to the extreme, we could have an impartial legal system putting in prison criminals from an even mix of society, and then the president pardoning everyone from the majority group, leaving in prison only the minorities.

[kortilla]

All of the presidents pardon tons of people unpalatable to the other side of the political spectrum. They usually just save it for the end of their term so it doesn’t cause too much noise.

[Escapado]

Honest question/thought experiment: if we only elected people who are qualified for their job (assume we can measure competence at least in some dimensions like we do for a myriad of other professions before we allow people to work in them) and if the election process was set up in a way where when casting your ballot you have to take a multiple choice quiz which tests for basic knowledge on what you will vote for and the country you’re in (as in “what is the household budget roughly, is this candidate in favour or against x, did the crime rate increase or decrease nominally” take these as rough examples of what I mean), to ensure that the people who vote for something have some clue what they are voting for and the broader context it’s embedded in (we require a license to drive a car, this would be akin to have a having a license to vote) would that remedy the situation a little? The idea would be that informed people would vote for informed people. Could you imagine this being a net benefit or not? I would assume it would make democracies significantly better than they are now. Imagine going to a doctors office to find out your doctor is a Plummer and he was voted into this job and that the people working for him and handling your prescription is a random assortment of people he seems to like.

[tchalla]

> On its own

The reality is in front of you. So, you can't look at this "on its own".

[barnabee]

Assuming a sufficiently functional congress[0], why not require that pardons go through congress as well rather than be unilateral presidential actions?

[0] A big if, I know…

[namlem]

Yep. The problem is the system of elections itself. Biden and Obama also issued a lot of dubious pardons and commutations. The incentives of elections naturally favor short-termism and populism. Instead of having the people vote on candidates, we should randomly select citizens to an elector jury, which would carefully research and deliberate on the candidates before choosing.

https://www.electionbyjury.org/

[Terr_]

> I suspect that the idea originally was to give some safety valve

That reminds me of the early 2000s, where there were a lot of US debates around around terrorism and "harsh interrogations" i.e. torture.

A certain bloc of politicians and commentators kept bringing up a hypothetical scenario where there was a nuclear bomb counting down, and some guy wouldn't admit where it was hidden in a major city. My favorite response to that involved presidential pardons, something along the lines of:

1. "So what? If everything you say is true, then the authorities would simply torture the guy and seek a pardon afterwards. We already have an exceptional mechanism for those exceptional situations, meaning that's not a reason to change it."

2. "Conversely, any interrogator who isn't confident of a pardon is on who does not believe it's at ticking-bomb situation, meaning they cannot justify torturing someone anyway, they just want to do it to make their job marginally easier. That's bad, so it should stay illegal."

[FilosofumRex]

It's part of the separation of powers and the system of checks & balances against powers of branches of government.

Congress makes laws and impeaches presidents, courts judge constitutionality of laws and try cases of treason and presidents appoint judges and grant pardons.

You can't have impeachment without pardon, otherwise, there wouldn't be a check against judicial tyranny.

[samatman]

It's a system of checks and balances. The Presidential pardon power is specifically a check on the power of the Federal judiciary.

Regimes have toppled in response to popular uprising against imprisonments perceived as unjust. Having a system of governance without a way to rectify that seems unwise to me.

The check on Presidential authority, in turn, is impeachment. It's not a perfect system by any means, but in my estimation it's a good one.

[varsketiz]

I tend to think this way about ideal leadership, but in reality big systems I can see end up having exception paths, or even processes

[that_guy_iain]

They literally gave the power of pardons so that one person could right wrongs. Previously, it was used a lot more than it is now. There are lots of people in prison on unfair sentences which are technically legal but still wrong. Sentencing guidelines are just guidelines.

[rafaelmn]

Legal system is very often at odds with public perception of justice, changing the law is slow and does shit for people currently in jail - having veto power for elected officials is a good safety mechanism and helps perception of justice.

[murphy1312]

It is a relic from the time when most countries had kings who could pardon people.

[sebzim4500]

He's a single person but this was a campaign promise of a campaign that 77.3 million americans voted for.

[tonymet]

Is this a complaint about Trump or Biden ? So far Biden has pardoned more than 20x Trump , and Bidens recipients were Much more controversial

[account42]

Bidens pardons have been even more absurd - pardoning people for unspecified crimes before they have even been charged. Including his family.

[vidarh]

In the context of a deeply vindictive successor surrounded, it seems like the entirely rational choice to make.

It's not one that should be needed or acceptable, and had his successor been someone who seemed to respect law and order I'd have agreed with you, but in the present circumstances it'd seem crazy not to.

[sofixa]

Because of very legitimate threats of politically motivated prosecution against them. Hell, his son was was prosecuted and dragged through the mud publicly, including in fucking Congress, for run of the mill regular crimes. Why was there such a treatment for a regular criminal?

[gadders]

Did you say this about Biden pardoning his whole family for their crimes, or just the ones Trump issued?

[dehrmann]

Not GP, but yes.

[varsketiz]

Not GP.

I think Bidens family pardons are problematic as well. I can understand why he did it.

I dont understand the argument for pardoning Ross.

[keepamovin]

Still something tells me you have zero problem with the thousands of pardons Biden issued, correct?

Don’t dress up your stance in fancy garb when it comes down to something baser.

[keepamovin]

I see that it’s still not possible to be pro Trump in YCombinator in 2025. One must still toe the line here. How sad.

[varsketiz]

This is not in any way related to Trump pardoning Ross or the fact that president can issue pardons at their discretion.

What you are doing here is a distraction from the topic - whataboutism.

[lolwatter]

Maybe the legal system shouldn't have been used to go after individuals based on political reasons? Wouldn't that be a good start? Fed always win, so send Fed after someone and they will be in jail soon. It doesn't matter what they did or didn't do, this is sadly the way it's done now.

1500 in jail for protesting in DC? Really, less than that in jail after months BLM riots afaik. Sure, jail a few bad boys, but 1500? No way.

Throw a rock at people in power and go jail. Rape and murder is fine, no threat to DC.

[realaleris149]

The number of people is irrelevant. What is relevant is what each one did. If they did something illegal that is punished with prison time, they go to prison.

[ngetchell]

Trying to justify stealing the election, then trying to rewrite history saying the other side broke stuff when they prostested is the laziest sort of whataboutism I've seen on this site.

Trump and his minons tried to undo the results of an election. An election he lost. Lost even while abusing his power as president (see his calls in Ukraine and Georgia as evidence).

Nobody on the left supports looters or rapists. If there is evidence someone committed a crime, prosecute them. Trump is the only person I know that supports rapists (see Epstien and Gaetz). He says if you are loyal to him, you don't have to face the consequences of your actions. That to me is what is most scary.