Merged Trump Pardons Arpaio

[Cavemonster]

I guess you missed Oscar Lopez Rivera:

Lopez Rivera was among those, but refused the offer of clemency; only a full-blown pardon would do for him.

Not to be too pedantic, but Lopez Rivera was not pardoned. he was given a commuted sentence.

 

[dudalb]

Does the POTUS have the authority to commute sentences? I know they can pardon (see Ford and Nixon), but commute sentences?

Yes he does for federal cases...and this was a federal case.

 

[Belz...]

Nobody on either side cares about the law, the constitution or any judge's decisions unless they line up with their beliefs and desires.

When those things cease to overlap, we're all prepared to ignore those things.

I wouldn't say nobody, but I have to agree with you on the general sentiment.

 

[NoahFence]

I wonder if those 2nd amendment people can take care of this issue with Arpaio.

 

[fuelair]

Trump Pardons Arpaio, Then Has Hot Feces For Lunch

 

[fuelair]

Ya!

.

Heil ****ler!!!!!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The guy's 85 years old. I've been sick of his shenanigans for years, but there's no real purpose in putting him in prison.

But surely that should be for the court to take into consideration and decide? Trump's previous statements on the subject were that he was being prosecuted for doing his job and should therefore be protected not that he was on frail to face prison.

 

[Brainster]

But surely that should be for the court to take into consideration and decide? Trump's previous statements on the subject were that he was being prosecuted for doing his job and should therefore be protected not that he was on frail to face prison.

There are certainly arguments to be made that Arpaio was doing his job. I see it more that the Feds were not doing theirs and so Arpaio decided he would step in. Essentially that's the case against him; the judge ruled (correctly) it was not his bailiwick and ordered him to stop.

I doubt if the judge was going to send Arpaio to jail. He's old and as a former LEO he'd need special protection.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But surely that should be for the court to take into consideration and decide? Trump's previous statements on the subject were that he was being prosecuted for doing his job and should therefore be protected not that he was on frail to face prison.

I wonder what the United States Code has to say about that:

42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

Although realistically, I've personally witnessed a few thousand conspiracists and tens of thousands of victims of this crime across my travels. The best outcomes are usually where the victim gets charges against them dropped, but the perpetrators walk free. Generally speaking, though, the victim pays a fine and occasionally has to explain things to a prospective employer for the rest of their lives.

 

[Brainster]

This would seem to give a pass to any octogenarian to do what they like regardless of the law.

"Hey, I'm over 80, they won't put me in jail" is not, I think, the attitude one wants to engender.

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.

 

[Cavemonster]

\
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.

You're missing a few.

4. As a deterrent. People will be less likely to commit crime if they see negative consequences. Failing to enforce consequences weakens the deterrent effect of laws, which some might argue is their primary value.

5. Simply because it is the law. If we are to be a nation of laws, we can't discard legal consequences lightly. Law and order. Pardons are inherently problematic for this aim, but pardons based on shared ideology send the message that law and order is only for the other guys. Trump is hardly the first president to do that, but each one weakens the rule of law.

6. For a sense of justice. You may dismiss this as irrelevant emotion, but it's one of the core benefits of our criminal justice system. In places where no authority creates a sense of justice delivered, then victims and their friends and families take justice into their own hands. That's why we had feuds lasting for generations, and one of the reasons that gangs, who put themselves outside of the justice system, are constantly exchanging violence. A sense of justice is owed to Arpaio's victims, and if you don't buy that through empathy, understand it through practicality. The Rodney King verdict started a riot. The more people who feel that justice is not served, the more likely people are to go outside the system with more destructive expressions.

 

[quadraginta]

In a normal Universe, a pardon obtains after conviction and punishment/restitution. Here we have Trump rushing in even before sentencing, in effect telling the Courts to butt out, that he knows better.

I can see in this a kind of testing the waters, to see how far he can go in future when looking to circumvent legality concerning cronies and witnesses, all with the aim of dodging responsibility for his own malfeasance. But I don't necessarily credit the dolt with the cleverness to figure this out fully; most likely help from one or more perspicacious players is in play. Although what Orange brainpower could be brought to bear would certainly be directed toward his own immediate and personal needs.

Sure.

It isn't like someone would ever get pardoned for all offenses which they have committed or may have committed or taken part in.

Before any arrests, charges, indictments, trials, or sentences.

...

...

...

Oh. Wait.

The precedents have already been established. It isn't the Republicans' first time around this block.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

This pardon seems to raise a couple of fundamental legal issues:
1) If the president can pardon someone convicted of violating a federal court order, does that imply that the president has de facto veto power over any federal court order?
2) If the president can pardon someone convicted of violating the "constitutional rights" of citizens, does that imply that our "rights" are not guaranteed by the constitution but instead are granted by the president?

 

[Foolmewunz]

There are certainly arguments to be made that Arpaio was doing his job. I see it more that the Feds were not doing theirs and so Arpaio decided he would step in. Essentially that's the case against him; the judge ruled (correctly) it was not his bailiwick and ordered him to stop.

I doubt if the judge was going to send Arpaio to jail. He's old and as a former LEO he'd need special protection.

Just doing his job? This is the Nuernberg Defense with sprinkles on top.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just doing his job? This is the Nuernberg Defense with sprinkles on top.

There are certain arguments for any position..doesn't mean they are good, valid or sensible arguments. To bring those idiotic arguments up is just dumb. It's kind of like the argument "both sides do it" when Nazis are confronted at a rally.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There are certain arguments for any position..doesn't mean they are good, valid or sensible arguments. To bring those idiotic arguments up is just dumb. It's kind of like the argument "both sides do it" when Nazis are confronted at a rally.

Well, Godwin is valid when talking about Trump's neo-cryptic fascist buddies, so I'm claiming a pass on that particular complaint.

BUT... try to imagine someone in Nuernberg offering up the defense that the federal government wasn't doing enough, so he had to take extra measures.

That's the Arpaio Just Doing His Job argument.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, Godwin is valid when talking about Trump's neo-cryptic fascist buddies, so I'm claiming a pass on that particular complaint.

BUT... try to imagine someone in Nuernberg offering up the defense that the federal government wasn't doing enough, so he had to take extra measures.

That's the Arpaio Just Doing His Job argument.

It's very much so, I agree. But hey, as long as it's only brown people suffering......

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's very much so, I agree. But hey, as long as it's only brown people suffering......

This is why the name of the specific charge is used to refer to his crimes (and compared to more evocative ones). Its almost like there were no people he hurt; just some procedural mistakes, you see.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[fuelair]

There are certainly arguments to be made that Arpaio was doing his job. I see it more that the Feds were not doing theirs and so Arpaio decided he would step in. Essentially that's the case against him; the judge ruled (correctly) it was not his bailiwick and ordered him to stop.

I doubt if the judge was going to send Arpaio to jail. He's old and as a former LEO he'd need special protection.

For some reason I cannot bring myself to care given his proven history!!!!!!!

 

[BobTheCoward]

This pardon seems to raise a couple of fundamental legal issues:
1) If the president can pardon someone convicted of violating a federal court order, does that imply that the president has de facto veto power over any federal court order?
2) If the president can pardon someone convicted of violating the "constitutional rights" of citizens, does that imply that our "rights" are not guaranteed by the constitution but instead are granted by the president?

1) the president can turn the country into the purge by simply pardoning every American every day. (Fed law only).

2) there are other limits to the Court's ability to compel "rights." Nothing can compel the legislature to make laws that make violating rights a crime. Nothing can compel prosecutors to prosecute if they don't want to.