- Joined
- Apr 5, 2018
- Messages
- 10,729
- Reaction score
- 10,819
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Did you read it? Were there any judges involved? What was their role? It is blatantly unconstitutional to keep a person incarcerated when they are found not guilty by a court. But no governor or president has the authority to find someone not guilty. They can only grant pardons or clemency lacking a court order. Courts made determinations of guilt or innocence. Executives do not.Ok. Here’s one. There are thousands of examples. You are just plain wrong. There’s no shame in admitting that you were wrong.
Here’s another.
He had always maintained his innocence, and was pardoned in 2017 by California's then-governor, Jerry Brown, based on exculpatory DNA evidence found by investigators.
Look. One does not need to be guilty to receive a pardon. One can be innocent and wrongly convicted and receive a pardon. This is an effing fact. Just admit that you are wrong.Did you read it? Were there any judges involved? What was their role? It is blatantly unconstitutional to keep a person incarcerated when they are found not guilty by a court. But no governor or president has the authority to find someone not guilty. They can only grant pardons or clemency lacking a court order. Courts made determinations of guilt or innocence. Executives do not.
He says these things to push the liberal’s buttons. You guys always fall for it.Then why the need to ponder about the legitimacy of a self-pardon?
No, it is not "an effing fact." People who are deemed innocent BY THE COURTS are not in need of pardons.Look. One does not need to be guilty to receive a pardon. One can be innocent and wrongly convicted and receive a pardon. This is an effing fact. Just admit that you are wrong.
Youre moving the goal post. There are innocent people in prison and a court refuses to retry them or overturn the conviction. The only other remedy for these people is a pardon. This has happened countless times over the years.No, it is not "an effing fact." People who are deemed innocent BY THE COURTS are not in need of pardons.
What an assholeReport: Trump Has Repeatedly Asked If He Can “Preemptively” Pardon Himself
He’s also inquired about pardons for his family members.www.vanityfair.com
But he didn't do anything!
The status of the defendant, GUILTY, does not change with a pardon. The opinion of the executive regarding the guilt or innocence of the person is irrelevant. Unless the conviction is reversed by a court, the person remains guilty, even when they receive a pardon. A pardon does not change the last verdict.Youre moving the goal post. There are innocent people in prison and a court refuses to retry them or overturn the conviction. The only other remedy for these people is a pardon. This has happened countless times over the years.
Your claim that only guilty people can receive a pardon is both wrong and idiotic at best.
You just just don’t get. You are arguing against points I never raised.The status of the defendant, GUILTY, does not change with a pardon. The opinion of the executive regarding the guilt or innocence of the person is irrelevant. Unless the conviction is reversed by a court, the person remains guilty, even when they receive a pardon. A pardon does not change the last verdict.
The only way a person is wrongfully convicted is if a judge says so. The executive does not have a say.You just just don’t get. You are arguing against points I never raised.
It’s quite simple. You believe that an innocent person wrongly convicted is not eligible for a pardon. That belief is wrong.
You’re someone who can’t be taken seriously.The only way a person is wrongfully convicted is if a judge says so. The executive does not have a say.
Sorry but pending and new charges will arise when the fat orange slob is kicked out of Bidens's White House.Other than the fact that there are no federal crimes which would require a pardon.
Nope.Sorry but pending and new charges will arise when the fat orange slob is kicked out of Bidens's White House.
Damn, thanks for linking, I read the Steese one and that is traumatizing.Ok. Here’s one. There are thousands of examples. You are just plain wrong. There’s no shame in admitting that you were wrong.
Here’s another.
He had always maintained his innocence, and was pardoned in 2017 by California's then-governor, Jerry Brown, based on exculpatory DNA evidence found by investigators.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said innocent people were never convicted. What I wrote was the executive does not get to declare innocence for a convicted person. In the eyes of the law a convicted person remains guilty until a court says otherwise, pardon or not.You’re someone who can’t be taken seriously.
Anyone who truly believes only a guilty person can receive a pardon is someone who can’t be reasoned with.
Anyone who believes that no innocent people are convicted of a crime and sent to prison can not be reasoned with. Anyone who thinks that person can not be granted a pardon can’t be reasoned with.
You’re all over the map on this. I know what you are trying to say but you are wrong.Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said innocent people were never convicted. What I wrote was the executive does not get to declare innocence for a convicted person. In the eyes of the law a convicted person remains guilty until a court says otherwise, pardon or not.
Which is irrelevant hair splitting. It is not an admission of guilt to accept a pardon. A pardon is simply the removal of legal disabilities from a person imposed by courts. That’s it.The status of the defendant, GUILTY, does not change with a pardon. The opinion of the executive regarding the guilt or innocence of the person is irrelevant. Unless the conviction is reversed by a court, the person remains guilty, even when they receive a pardon. A pardon does not change the last verdict.
SCOTUS disagrees.Which is irrelevant hair splitting. It is not an admission of guilt to accept a pardon. A pardon is simply the removal of legal disabilities from a person imposed by courts. That’s it.
No they don’t. Cite the caseSCOTUS disagrees.
If a court has declared someone "wrongly convicted" the court remedes the situation. No pardon needed. In fact, that is the way it happens. If the court is not compelled by the arguments or evidence of claims of innocence, the pardon remedy is still available, but that does not change the verdict.You’re all over the map on this. I know what you are trying to say but you are wrong.
Innocent people who were wrongly convicted and are in prison are eligible to be granted a pardon. This is a fact. End of conversation.
I already did. See post #10. Read the tab labeled "case."No they don’t. Cite the case
This quote can be found about 90% down the page.The [pardon] carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.
Did you watch Trump at the Corona Virus briefings? The man is beyond satire.Sounds like fake news. Either that or satire and some liberal idiots believe it.
Yes a court can reverse a decision when an innocent person is convicted. . They don’t always do that. In that case a pardon is appropriate.If a court has declared someone "wrongly convicted" the court remedes the situation. No pardon needed. In fact, that is the way it happens. If the court is not compelled by the arguments or evidence of claims of innocence, the pardon remedy is still available, but that does not change the verdict.
As a an interesting side note, when a person accepts a pardon, they lose their protections under the fifth amendment regarding the crime for which they were convicted. In other words, if investigators are looking into activities related to that crime (perhaps to bring charges against others) the pardoned person cannot invoke their right against self incrimination, since the state is prohibited from prosecuting the person who was pardoned. Therefore, they can be compelled to testify truthfully or face contempt of court charges.
This is why president Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence (convicted of 7 felonies and sentenced to 40 months in prison) rather than granting a pardon. A commutation preserves Stone's rights under the 5th amendment, whereas a pardon would have left Stone open to compelled testimony.
Yes a court can reverse a decision when an innocent person is convicted. . They don’t always do that. In that case a pardon is appropriate.
I have no idea where you are coming from. Are you still denying that an innocent person wrongly convicted can receive a pardon?And you keep claiming that if an executive grants a pardon on the basis they "believe" the person to be innocent, that makes it so. I assure, it does not. The USSC says it does not.
Further, you cannot point to a single case wherein a judge said "I believe the evidence shows the individual was wrongfully convicted and thereby innocent and I will not change either the verdict or the sentence or order a new trial."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?