[daniel-s]

The reason why it exists is important for a democracy. It protects the outgoing administration from political persecution after they leave, promoting peaceful transitions of power and is a safety valve for when the state becomes powerful and goes after people that it shouldn't, which happens all the time.

Unfortunately it is also used by all presidents to pardon their buddies.

[SamBam]

> Unfortunately it is also used by all presidents to pardon their buddies.

I may have missed it: did the Obama Administration pardon a single friend or relative of the Obamas'? Or a single person connected to the administration?

I believe that Obama tried to ensure that the pardon process was beyond reproach. (Some people may disagree with who was pardoned, but the process did not appear to be corrupt in any way.)

[uxp100]

I read an article yesterday and it suggested that was because George W Bush impressed upon him the importance of having a plan and sticking to it after Bush was surprised at the end of his term with all the people coming out of the woodwork to ask for pardons, so it was on his mind when they met before inauguration. It was an ok article, CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/donald-trump-elevent...

[oji0hub]

I don't know but he pardoned something like a few hundred people I think? That said, Obama was a class act so I'd absolutely believe he was (is) honest.

[SamBam]

Sure, most president pardon a few hundred people. (Ford: 382, Carter: 534 , Regan: 393, Clinton: 396, Bush: 189, Obama: 212)

Obama ensured that there was a process set up that filtered the pardon requests, so that no hint of political- or personal-favors could intrude, no possible quid-pro-quo, etc.

Yes, Clinton's pardoning of his brother-in-law was pretty bad. Trump's pardoning of his entire slate of co-conspirators and personal associates looks worse, to me personally.

[mcrae]

> It protects the outgoing administration from political persecution

Aren’t pardons generally given post-conviction? How can it be a tool to protect against an incoming administration if the victim has been convicted under the current one?

Unless you mean that in the future, when the outgoing’s party is back in power they can issue pardons. That doesn’t seem to be consistent with the trend that many pardons are issued on a President’s last day in office (and not his first).

[maxerickson]

Famously, Ford pardoned Nixon prior to any charges, never mind conviction.

[StavrosK]

Maybe it would be enough to change the law so a president can only issue pardons in his first year or two each term.

[mc32]

Governors too, I imagine.

[brown9-2]

Yikes, this is not at all why it should exist, and this is basically an argument for corruption/immunity for the sake of comity.

[jkhdigital]

> an argument for corruption/immunity for the sake of comity

It's not an endorsement of corruption, rather an acknowledgement that the price of comity includes some corruption. This seems like an anti-fragile mechanism to me: in exchange for the inevitable but relatively minor injustice of corrupt pardons, we can pre-empt behavior that could lead to all-out political war that destroys the entire system.

[cmsonger]

> Unfortunately it is also used by all presidents to pardon their buddies.

I agree, but that's the boolean. There's probably a reasonable float or int description that allows a more nuanced comparison of exactly how much any president did this.

[antattack]

Presidential pardon also weakens Judicial branch and seems to promote lawlessness. I read that some of the recent 'insurrectionists' actions were encouraged by the thought that President could pardon their illegal activity.

[pantalaimon]

This does not seem to be needed in any other western democracy.

[koolba]

> The reason why it exists is important for a democracy. It protects the outgoing administration from political persecution after they leave, promoting peaceful transitions of power and is a safety valve for when the state becomes powerful and goes after people that it shouldn't, which happens all the time.

That's not why it exists. Pardon power exists so the President has a way to declare peace on behalf of the government with an individual. It has nothing to do with transfer of power. It's to ensure that the President has an out to call off the wolves of the rest of the government and put a matter behind us.

> Unfortunately it is also used by all presidents to pardon their buddies.

Which is still less corrupt than pardoning your cocaine trafficking, drunk driving brother: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clinton_Jr.#Conviction_a...

[gertrunde]

I'm not really sure I'd describe that one as "corrupt", which I feel implies a nastier motive than trying to deal with embarrassing family members. A bit questionable and self serving, yes, definitely, but corrupt? Not sure it goes that far tbh.

(An amusing detail from the newspaper reports was that Bill Clinton had authorised the sting operation that resulted in his brother's arrest during his tenure as Govenor of Arkansas). (Ref: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/23/us/clinton-pardons-brothe... )