How do Presidential pardons work?

[SackAttack]

On the pardons list were:

-Mark Alan Eberwine of San Antonio, conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, and obstructing the assessment of taxes by the Internal Revenue Service and making false declarations to the grand jury. Sentenced Feb. 1, 1985, as amended April 23, 1986, to two years' imprisonment.

-Colin Earl Francis of Naugatuck, Conn., accepting a kickback of about $9,000 for helping a vendor for United Technologies Corp.'s Sikorsky Aircraft division, where Francis worked at the time, land a contract. Sentenced May 7, 1993, to two years' probation and a $2,500 fine.

-George Thomas Harley of Albuquerque, N.M., aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine. Sentenced Nov. 30, 1984, to nine years' imprisonment and five years' special parole.

-Patricia Ann Hultman, of Kane, Pa., conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and other controlled substances. Sentenced Oct. 28, 1985, to one year of imprisonment.

-Eric William Olson of Ojai, Calif., conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, possession with intent to distribute, possession, and use of hashish. Sentenced Feb. 21, 1984, by an Army general court-martial to confinement at hard labor for one year, reduction in pay grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a bad conduct discharge.

-Thomas R. Reece of Cumming, Ga., violating the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to alcohol. Sentenced May 2, 1969, to one year of imprisonment.

-Larry Gene Ross of Indio, Calif., making false statements in a bank loan application. Sentenced Aug. 15, 1989, to four years' probation and $7,654.20 in restitution.

-Jearld David Swanner of Lexington, Okla., making false statements in a bank loan application. Sentenced Dec. 6, 1991, to three years' probation.

-James Walter Taylor of McCrory, Ark., bank fraud. Sentenced Oct. 18, 1991, to 90 days in jail, followed by two years and nine months' probation.

-Janet Theone Upton of Salinas, Calif., mail fraud. Sentenced May 23, 1975, to two years' unsupervised probation.

Bush also granted a commutation of sentence to Phillip Anthony Emmert of Washington, Iowa, whose case involved conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.

He was sentenced Dec. 23, 1992, to 262 months' imprisonment (reduced on Feb. 21, 1996) and five years' supervised release. Bush directed that Emmert's sentence expire on this coming Jan. 20, but left the supervised release intact.

Is this just an expungement of the record for most of these people, or is there something else I'm missing?

[SirFozzie]

A lot of this is from: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

The President has the power to completely overturn a criminal conviction. This is a full pardon. The conviction is wiped away as if it never happened. The President can commute a criminal sentence, turning a life sentence into a 10 year sentence or a death penalty into a life sentence. The President can make a pardon conditional, vacating a conviction but leaving paid fines in place, or even making the payment of a fine a prerequisite before a pardon takes effect.

Note, the person receiving the pardon does not even have to be in jail, or in fact CHARGED with a crime yet.

For example, on Prez Clinton's last day in office, he pardoned fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to live in Switzerland in order to avoid prosecution on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. He had never been tried (he fled before prosecution), but the pardon wiped it away. The Justice Department could not try him on that charge (Note, a Presidential Pardon is permanent, the next President could not "un-do" the Pardon)

The President can set terms on the pardon, for example in the case above, Clinton required that Rich pay a fine of 100 million dollars.

A pardon can also be granted to a class of people, such as those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion. In U.S. v Klein (80 US 128), the Supreme Court upheld such blanket or group pardons. For example, President James Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers.

[Young Drachma]

Where does this power come from? I mean, I'm okay with it....seems like it's the least we can do for the hell that goes with the job, but...I guess I wonder at what point in history someone thought "Hey, this would be a great idea for the President to have this power?"

[cthomer5000]

A pardon can also be granted to a class of people, such as those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion. In U.S. v Klein (80 US 128), the Supreme Court upheld such blanket or group pardons. For example, President James Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers.

Makes sense. It would just be a waste of time to list them one by one and submit them that way. It would just be a matter of paperwork, not a practical difference.

I always enjoy the last few days in office pardons. Some interesting stuff transpires there.

[Vegas Vic]

For example, on Prez Clinton's last day in office, he pardoned fugitive billionaire Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to live in Switzerland in order to avoid prosecution on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. He had never been tried (he fled before prosecution), but the pardon wiped it away. The Justice Department could not try him on that charge (Note, a Presidential Pardon is permanent, the next President could not "un-do" the Pardon)

The President can set terms on the pardon, for example in the case above, Clinton required that Rich pay a fine of 100 million dollars.

A pardon can also be granted to a class of people, such as those involved in the Whiskey Rebellion. In U.S. v Klein (80 US 128), the Supreme Court upheld such blanket or group pardons. For example, President James Carter pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers.

And a president can pardon people to save himself from prosecution.

On December 24, 1992, just days before he left office, President George H. W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other officials who were accused and/or convicted in the Iran-Contra affair. Weinberger had been scheduled to stand trial on January 5, 1993 for lying to Congress regarding his knowledge of arms sales to Iran and concealing 1700 pages of his personal diary detailing discussions with other officials about the arms sales. Since Weinberger’s private notes contained references to Bush’s endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran, the Bush pardons appear to be an effort to prevent an order for Bush to appear before a grand jury or possibly avoid an indictment.

[kcchief19]

Where does this power come from? I mean, I'm okay with it....seems like it's the least we can do for the hell that goes with the job, but...I guess I wonder at what point in history someone thought "Hey, this would be a great idea for the President to have this power?"
Same place a lot of our rule of law comes from ... we brought it from England. Pardon power was held by the king, although I want to say that the king's primary if not only pardon power was commuting death sentences.

The Brits back in the day loved to sentence people to death for everything, then they king could pardon them -- probably only to people who had the money and social standing to repay such a debt to the crown.

[Young Drachma]

Same place a lot of our rule of law comes from ... we brought it from England. Pardon power was held by the king, although I want to say that the king's primary if not only pardon power was commuting death sentences.

The Brits back in the day loved to sentence people to death for everything, then they king could pardon them -- probably only to people who had the money and social standing to repay such a debt to the crown.

Cool. Makes sense.

[clintl]

A lot of this is from:
Note, the person receiving the pardon does not even have to be in jail, or in fact CHARGED with a crime yet.



A classic example of this situation is President Ford's pardon of Nixon.

[flere-imsaho]

Same place a lot of our rule of law comes from ... we brought it from England. Pardon power was held by the king, although I want to say that the king's primary if not only pardon power was commuting death sentences.

The Brits back in the day loved to sentence people to death for everything, then they king could pardon them -- probably only to people who had the money and social standing to repay such a debt to the crown.

I don't disagree with you, but I need to nitpick the bolded part. The British Monarch (at least until "Constitutional Monarchy") could overturn pretty much anything, no matter what the sentence. In most traditional monarchies, the monarch was the law, and so could change the law pretty much on a whim (and sometimes did exactly that).

Everyone likes to point to Magna Carta (1215) as the point where this monarchical power got reined in, but from a practical standpoint monarchies didn't really start to get reined in until the time of the French and American Revolutions. Case in point: Edward I (1272 - 1307), Edward III (1327 - 1377) and Henry V (1413 - 1422), just to name a few, had complete, undisputed and utter autonomy over every aspect of their governments. To say nothing of someone like Louis XIV of France, of course.

Sorry, I'm history geeking-out here. I'll stop. :D

[SackAttack]

A lot of this is from: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

The President has the power to completely overturn a criminal conviction. This is a full pardon. The conviction is wiped away as if it never happened. The President can commute a criminal sentence, turning a life sentence into a 10 year sentence or a death penalty into a life sentence. The President can make a pardon conditional, vacating a conviction but leaving paid fines in place, or even making the payment of a fine a prerequisite before a pardon takes effect.

That basically explains what I was wondering. I was seeing pardons where fines had been assessed, and I wondered what happened there. Does the President have the power to overturn those, as well, causing the government (or whoever) to return the money? Or does that fall under ex post facto prohibition?

[bulletsponge]

i hope Miss USA gets a pardon, damn we need Clinton for that

[SirFozzie]

That basically explains what I was wondering. I was seeing pardons where fines had been assessed, and I wondered what happened there. Does the President have the power to overturn those, as well, causing the government (or whoever) to return the money? Or does that fall under ex post facto prohibition?

If a fine's already been paid, I don't think they can do anything about it.

[Greyroofoo]

I'm not a fan of presidential pardons.

Dumb idea.