In Reply to: What's the argument to keep presidential pardons in the first posted by blindness on October 14, 2026 at 09:09:25
The first thing to be said is that it's the questionable pardons that get all the publicity. So let's start with the most common pardon scenario.
Someone is convicted of a crime. They serve their entire sentence, both prison and probation. They acknowledge their culpability. After that there is a waiting period of a few years (I think 5) during which they keep their nose clean. And then, upon the recommendation of the Pardon Attorney (I think they work for the White House Counsel, but it may be the AG) the President issues the pardon. My understanding is that this is how the majority of pardons are handled.
What's the point? Restoration of civil rights. When asked about criminal convictions when applying for jobs the person can add that they were pardoned. But mostly it's a way to ask for forgiveness and redeem themselves. It has great meaning to the person pardoned and their family. It's a stamp of approval on their rehabilitation.
Pardons also serve as a check on the judiciary. Sometimes the strict execution of our laws does not fit our ordinary sense of justice. And sometimes pardons need to be issued for pragmatic reasons. The pardons of Vietnam-era draft dodgers allowed the country to move on rather making those folks permanent exiles. And sometimes pardons are issued when our laws change, decriminalizing former offenses.
So there are reasons for keeping the power to pardon in the Presidential quiver.
The only change I'm arguing for is to amend the Constitution to prohibit Presidential pardons for crimes committed on the President's behalf--whether the President asked them to or not. That just seems like self-evident corruption. If some later President wants to pardon them, I'm fine with that.