How does a presidential pardon work?
The President can issue pardons only for federal offenses -- those obtained in US District Court, the District of Columbia, or military courts-martial. He has no power to issue pardons for crimes handled in state courts. The Marathon bomber could be pardoned by the President for any federal charge (say, under federal anti-terrorist law) but if he was also charged under Massachusetts law, it would be up to the governor of Massachusetts to issue any pardon, under Massachusetts law. Pardons come in degrees. It might only restore rights (voting rights, for example) or expunging of records after a sentence is completed. It might commute a sentence not already completed. It might cancel prosecution of a crime before prosecution begins. The President decides what degree of pardon to grant. The President is not required to justify or explain his actions to anyone in granting a pardon, or to obtain permission. He simply does it. It is one of the king-like privileges of the office, like being Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Of course it can be difficult to get a pardon petition to the President -- the Justice Department has a process for application, and that gives its bureaucrats opportunity to screen applicants -- but the President doesn't need to consult anybody on any case that comes to his attention. Abraham Lincoln probably granted the most pardons, due to circumstances he felt were lamentable or unjust during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt granted several thousand; so did Harry Truman. In our day, Presidents grant fewer pardons because of the widespread attitude that officials must be "tough on crime."
Why do presidential pardons exist?
Best answer: Presidential pardon is a check against the judicial system. In rare cases the judicial system does not work and there is an unfair or unjust decision or sentence. The President has the opportunity to make it right. Bill Clinton was accused of abusing his pardon authority by giving pardons to people who had donated money to his library or had paid money to his Clinton's Brother in law. George Bush has used the pardon very sparingly and none of them have been controversial. The President has complete authority to issue a pardon to whoever they want. Most presidents do not abuse this authority and only give pardons when they are in the best interest of justice and the best interest of our country.That being said, I’m not sure pardoning Arpaio. Sheriff Joe was a poor example of a sheriff, and he broke many laws while in office. Trump must have seen some reason to pardon the guy, but I have difficulty with the decision.
Does a presidential pardon in India also work as the highest appeal or last resort of the appeal process?
yes it can be said as the highest appeal for criminal sentences & punishments. and the presidents verdict cannot be put downArticle 72 says PRESIDENT can pardon, commute, suspend , respite, remit of punishment
Can the president pardon himself for any crimes he has committed? ?
Look at it this way. If the president commits a crime, and is convicted of it (for which he would need a pardon) then congress would have to IMMEDIATELY move to impeach him to which he would no longer be president to pardon himself. So the answer is no.
Can Congress override Presidential pardons?
Considering all Osama has commited.... The President would be acting on close terms of impeachment. Or at least be charged with treason. Clinton did this with a the Puerto Rican terrorists back when... and got away with it. But, the Puerto Rican terrorists, despite being a terrorist group and operating in and out of the Arabian Penninsula, Osama's terrorists followers are by far more of a danger. The left operates without using intellect in a debate... None of their **** makes sense! They even consume eachother to meet agenda's needs. But, he won't do this. If this was the case, he would have had a plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. --Rob USMC
If someone receives a presidential pardon, can they still be forced to testify about their crime?
In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson used a presidential pardon to remove the fifth amendment protections of George Burdick, an editor of the New York Tribune. A grand jury was investigating suspected leaks from the Treasury Department, but Burdick refused to testify and invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Wilson granted Burdick a full pardon for any offenses against the United States to remove Burdick's fifth amendment protections. Burdick continued to refuse to testify and was fined and jailed.Burdick's case went all the way to the Supreme Court where the court decided Burdick had the right to refuse to testify on the grounds that he refused the pardon and could not be forced to accept a pardon. Both the lower court in holding Burdick in contempt and the Supreme Court accept that a pardon removes protection against self-incrimination[1] .It is still possible a person who accepts a presidential pardon could refuse to testify if their testimony would incriminate them against state crimes for which the presidential pardon does not apply. If state crimes do not apply, then Congress could compel testimony and hold the person in contempt if they refuse to testify. Contempt of Congress is a civil offense for which a presidential pardon is not likely to apply.Footnotes[1] Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
Does the president have the legal authority to pardon his children if they are convicted of a crime?
Trump can pardon or he can offer it in other forms - none of which carry a presumption of guiltHe can offer them immunity from prosecution, or a blanket amnesty. The power to pardon can be shaped as necessary.Some mistakenly believe that granting a pardon is somehow associated with guilt. This is not true. The burden to prove guilt is on the government, so the government does not have the power to impute guilt through a pardon. The pardon is granted, not requested, upon a person and does not require their approval or permission.Imagine a state-level prosecutor saying “You were pardoned, so you must be guilty” - No -all citizens are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.And aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves? Has anyone charged Trump? Or his children?No, and there’s a good reason - no evidence.
Can The President Pardon Anybody He Wants?
The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." No standards, and only one limitation -- no pardons for the impeached.
Can a president issue a preemptive pardon? Can the US President pardon a person for a crime for which they have not yet been indicted or convicted?
Yes, President Ford issued a presidential pardon (Proclamation 4311) on September 8, 1974, which granted former president Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president (Wikipedia).I am also trying to understand this precedence. While the US Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 2) grants the President the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment”, the US also adheres to the doctrine of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law”. With this “presumption of innocence” doctrine in mind, it begs the question, wouldn’t a pre-emptive pardon leads to a situation where a person is being absolved of criminal liabilities while still being presumed innocent?The US Constitution grants the President the power to pardon “for offenses against the United States”, and as country which adheres to the rule of law, these “offenses” must be tried and proven in a court of law and not merely alleged, no matter how strong the evidence maybe.We have a similar presidential power to pardon in the Philippines, Sec. 19, Art. VII of the Constitution, provides:“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment (emphasis mine).”You will note that a pardon can only be issued by the President after conviction, so pre-emptive pardon is non-existent in the Philippines. A noted expert on Constitutional law elucidates that:“While a pardon has generally been regarded as blotting out the existence of guilt so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as though he never committed the offense, it does not operate for all purposes. The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt. Pardon implies guilt. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and the conviction thereof. It does not wash out the moral stain. It involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness”. - Primer on the President’s power to grant PardonI apologize to the OP for answering with another question, but i am hoping US legal experts can explain this seeming legal dilemma.