In the criminal world, a presidential pardon is like the Golden Snitch in Harry Potter: rare and almost impossible to obtain. It is an executive action that can completely excuse someone of their crimes. In my opinion, this constitutional right should be revoked as it can and has been used to excuse convicted terrorists and criminals for no legitimate reason. It has allowed dangerous people back into society who can potentially threaten the general public at some point in the future.
Presidents Typically Lack Legal Knowledge
Understanding and practicing the law is no easy task. The judges who aid in the determination of guilt and subsequent conviction dedicate almost or more than a decade of their lives to learning how to do so. Firstly, judges-to-be obtain a bachelor’s before taking the LSAT/GRE, determining whether an individual is a good fit to take on an extra 3+ years of legal schooling. The education does not end there! Even after one successfully passes the bar and becomes a lawyer, they must have anywhere from 2-10 years of experience before potentially being elected as a judge!
With all that being said, how is it possible for a president to be educated enough to not only know the law but to have a different opinion than someone who is extensively qualified in their role? One notable example is when Donald Trump pardoned a high number of the January 6th rioters during his time in the presidency. These rioters no doubt committed terrorism as the definition states, “terrorism, the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective,” John Jenkins, Britannica. Their objective was to storm the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election results.
The judges who brought charges against the terrorists, some of whom were a part of extremist organizations, were extremely just and qualified in their rulings. For instance, one of said judges, Judge Beryl Howell, had decades of schooling and law experience under her belt. During her career, she served in countless legal sectors, such as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and general counsel for the United States Senate. Does Trump have anywhere near as much legal experience as she? No, the former and current president has zero academic experience in the law and instead holds a simple bachelor of economics.
What Would be the Alternative?
I believe that there should be an alternative for all parties involved. Especially because certain legal proceedings from the past may not have been fair due to sexist/racist/false reasoning. A statistic that corroborates this fact is that almost 60% of exonerations by The Innocence Project are African-Americans, despite making up only around 13% of the U.S. population.
A proposed alternative should be some kind of forced review. If the current President believes that something about a case is wrong, they should be able to require a re-ruling/case review. This way, someone with little to no legal education is not able to make official rulings, but they are still allowed to have some kind of say in convictions that seem unjust. This may also help prevent pardons based on knowing or favoring the criminal, as has been reflected by several of Trump’s affiliates’ pardons.
Concluding Thoughts on Pardons
In conclusion, Presidents should not be able to have the power to expunge individuals of their crimes. Allowing unqualified individuals to excuse crimes is like letting an office worker perform brain surgery. Even if they could somehow do it without causing the patient to die does not mean they should or that the results would be positive. A Presidential pardon is an outdated ability that should be discussed further to come up with more realistic/fair alternatives.
