Merged Trump Pardons Arpaio

slyjoe said:
Not sure why you think she will capitulate. There is case law that seems to indicate accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...

There appears to be as much case law saying that accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt.
An articel by a conlaw professor:
Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt?
Some people have asked: Does accepting a presidential or gubernatorial pardon imply an admission of guilt? The answer turns out to be complicated.

...

Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...

Most people I've spoken with think it is an admission of guilt via the there's no smoke without fire fallacy.
 
quadraginta said:
It isn't all that different.

Both involve being released from custody after having been convicted and before having completed whatever sentence was passed.
Click to expand...

as we have seen re: Arapio, that is not true.

See also Nixon, R.M.
 
Trebuchet said:
I'm sure that legally accepting a pardon isn't an admission of guilt. Just like taking the fifth. In the minds of the public, however, both pretty much are.
Click to expand...

Was Arpaio actually found guilty in a court of law?

If so, then he IS guilty, regardless of his protestations. Guilty is defined by law. If a judge/jury finds you guilty, you are guilty in the eyes of the law, by definition, regardless of whether you think you are or not.

So accepting a pardon would merely be an admission that you were found guilty in a court of law. Which, if it happened, is undeniable.

Now, if the case is on-going and he has not been found guilty yet, then the pardon could just be for crimes he may or may not have committed. Basically like Ford's pardon of Nixon. He never said Nixon did it, just that, if he did, he's pardoned.
 
Trebuchet said:
I'm sure that legally accepting a pardon isn't an admission of guilt. Just like taking the fifth. In the minds of the public, however, both pretty much are.
Click to expand...

I'm equally sure that you're wrong. I've got nine guys in black robes (no, not a satanist reunion) who agree with me. There are two major cases involving pardons that made the Supreme Court. The first was under Jackson's administration, the second Woodrow Wilson's.

Both opinions clearly state that accepting a pardon has with it an implication of guilt.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm equally sure that you're wrong. I've got nine guys in black robes (no, not a satanist reunion) who agree with me. There are two major cases involving pardons that made the Supreme Court. The first was under Jackson's administration, the second Woodrow Wilson's.

Both opinions clearly state that accepting a pardon has with it an implication of guilt.
Click to expand...
Without reading the opinions, it seems to me that the only way this works is if the pardon is accepted in advance of prosecution during which one would presumably try to prove their innocence. Otherwise, it's just sensible and practical to accept a pardon instead of suffering the consequences of conviction, regardless of guilt.

ETA: Practically, it would only be at issue in a court if one was prosecuted on a different level from that to which the pardon applies (e.g., being prosecuted on a federal civil rights charge for a crime which a governor had previously pardoned, or perhaps in the case of a civil lawsuit).
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Seems to indicate?

What case?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/

Legal authorities, then, are split on the subject of how the law should understand pardons; but because some pardons are understood as being based on the pardoned person’s factual innocence, I doubt that any judge today would genuinely view acceptance of pardon as always being an admission of guilt. And my sense (though I realize that it might be mistaken) is that most people’s moral judgment today would be that, even if a pardon is offered just as a gesture of mercy and not as exoneration, the recipient may honorably accept it even if they continue to deny their factual guilt or their moral guilt.
 
The underlying implication is that one cannot plead the 5th on issues pertaining to that matter. Having been pardoned, one's statements are not legally incriminating (no possible prosecution would result from them).

Now, I haven't read Trump's pardon. What did he pardon Arpaio for? The contempt alone? Well, then he'd still be free to invoke the 5th about all his grievous misdeeds as Sheriff. If he was broadly pardoned, then we need to get him on a witness stand to at least have to utter the words in front of people.

Perhaps the most minimal and yet powerful bit of justice that can ever be extracted: admission and acknowledgment into the public record of what the truth was.
 
Brainster said:
Yeah, I mean, the next thing you know you have old folks getting together and mugging people. Or gumming people.

There are essentially three reasons why society puts people in prison:

1. To protect society against those likely to commit more crimes if they are not jailed.

2. To rehabilitate prisoners so they can become functioning members of society.

3. To punish people for their transgressions. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Of the three, I favor 1&2 but recognize that 3 is important in severe enough cases. Now think about Sheriff Joe. Likely to re-offend? No, he got voted out and at 85 I don't see him running again. Does he need to be rehabilitated? Not an issue. So it boils down to punishment. Remember, the "crime" that Arpaio was convicted of carried a 6-month sentence. In our society, that is not indicative of a severe crime.

So forget the comparison to 85-year-old Nazis. Looking at the thread, a lot of people want to sentence Arpaio over crimes for which he has never been tried. Guess what? Unless Trump issued a blanket pardon, you can still go after him for those things.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they will and make his last years as close to what he did to those he tortured and whose rights he rode roughshod over as legally possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom