Many judges are either bias towards ethnicity, race, or religion, and they will convict people because of that reason. The president has the responsibility to care for the citizens, and will now allow bias or discrimination to pass and be done on the regular citizen. No one should be convicted due to their appearance or beliefs.
Sometimes justice miscarries. The American courts are fair, but no legal system
is perfect. Certain innocent people are found guilty because of popular opinion.
Lynching has vanished in America, but judicial lynching, when the
courts forget reason, can still happen. Then, fortunately, an innocent convict still
has a last place to ask for mercy. Just as commoners once could appeal to the
king to override the system, so modern innocents can appeal to the governor
of their state, or if necessary to the president.
There is a place for presidential pardons in our country. These pardons should be considered at length by the president and the pros and cons should be carefully researched. The advice of trusted aides should be taken into consideration. But, in the end, there are circumstances where a presidential pardon should be granted.
Pardons make law garbage. The president can be bias and just pardon people that he likes or people who voted for him. Search it up. President Bill Clinton issued 140 pardons, many whom were for those who donated to him and his own brother. Now that just goes against the rule of law that everyone should be treated equal.
The president has not necessarily studied law, or even the case of the person they'd pardoning, nor should they have as that's not their job. Furthermore, pardons are a method which presidents can use to aid friends and family, whereas in the judicial system that would be conflict of interest.
A rogue president uses political pardon to his own benefit. There should not be a reason to question court judgment by the whim of one "person". If there really was a need, the president should make a case to the congress and get a bipartisan support for it before being allowed to pardon anyone. The president should not be allowed to pardon someone related to him (in any way).
The current public arrogance about having the authority to be able to pardon anyone (including himself) should be considered obstruction of justice as that is what it is.
One of the prime reasons why the Us left the British empire was so that there can be democracy. Only in a dictatorship and monarchy do the pardon. Which have the ability to supersede the law of the land. It is in itself against what the American forefathers wanted and hence should be revoked
Presidential pardons often contradict judicial sentences and cause controversy between the opposing stances; presidential or judicial. Representers of the law concentrate their careers to administrating equality and justice through the field that they are devoted to. Yes, corruption can be ubiquitous but in these cases, it is up to supporting judges to come together and brainstorm on what actions should be undergone and how to execute them to prevent future problems.
Investigations into the wrongdoings of a president typically involve finding evidence against collaborators and then making a deal: clemency for them in exchange for evidence against a bigger fish, e.g. the president. But if the collaborators believe that the president will pardon them for their crimes, then investigators have no leverage, making it much harder to build a case against the corrupt president.
Nobody should have that power.
While it is true that sometimes courts rule unjustly, why does that mean that one person should be able to pardon whoever they want? It's not surprising at all that most of the pardons tend to be political in nature, while people who are actually victims of miscarriages of justice rot in prison. Take Dan and Fran Keller, who spent 21 years in prison based on laughable accusations of Satanic rituals - they were totally ignored by Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
It just doesn't meet the "common sense" test. What is more fair - judgment by a court of law and a jury of his peers 'or' pardons by one person that circumvents this rule of law. I can see situations where the country "needs to move forward", but even in this case, there needs to be a review by either Congress (elected by the people) or by the Supreme Court (selected by multiple presidents) at some two-thirds or three-quarters percent vote. Too often, individuals (departing president) or political parties are the beneficiary of these pardons. It is corrupting and a disgrace. This mandate "to change" or "to abolish" presidential pardons needs to be added to the list of mandates that will "drain the swamp" in Washington.
The framers of the original US constitution were very carefull not to give the President unchecked power, amoung these were that the President was in his action limited by both the legislative branch and judiciaries in a system called checks and balances.
A pardon is not overturnable, unlike a new act by Congress which can either be vetod or declared unconstitutional or unlike a dission by the Supreme Court in which Congress could just pass a new act.
This gives the President near unchecked power, however the legislature could still pass a new act overturning the Presidents pardon power.
Presidential pardons are an abuse of the power of the president, due to the fact that they can not be reviewed by Congress or the Supreme Court. The pardons go unchecked, and they circumvent the justice system. Throughout the years the presidential pardons have often been contreversial. One of these pardons include the pardoning of Richard Nixon by Henry Ford.