Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
A pardon for an offense does presume that the accused is guilty. Only a court of law can prove someone guilty. The person is still presumed innocent until a court says otherwise.
In fact, presidents have pardoned people before trial because the president thinks that person is innocent. This is a good use of the pardon as it can prevent a miscarriage of justice. It would make no sense for an innocent person to admit guilt.
There is no requirement that the accused sign something or say something to indicate guilt.
Fat hurts,
You simply are not correct. If a person accepts a pardon, it is an admission of guilt. Again, go read up on Burdick v. United States.
"A pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt."
Consider that you have learned something today.
I looked at Burdick before I ever posted about this. I've read up on it already.
What you are talking about in your quote is merely dictum. It had no bearing on the Burdick case and is therefore far from being settled case law. Google it and you will see that legal scholars disagree on this point. Accepting a pardon doesn't mean you are guilty. And as this was not the central question in Burdick, it has never been tested.
From a practical and Constitutional standpoint, it makes no sense that accepting a pardon means you are guilty. Let's say an insane prosecutor way back when indicted Mother Teresa for spouse abuse under federal domestic violence laws. Since she was never married, the president concludes that she is innocent and grants her a pardon. Nobody in their right mind would think that accepting the pardon means she is guilty of the crime.
If the "guilt theory" of pardons was ever tested, I am confident it would be dismissed. Flagpole, I know that you want it to be true because you think it helps your case on this thread. My advice to you is to give it up. Michael Cohen just handed you plenty of redemption yesterday. The president cheated to win the election and Cohen just plead guilty to that fact.
Flagpole wins.[/quote]
I don't need redemption. I am just right about the fact that if you accept a pardon, it is an admission of guilt. Your logical assumptions don't play into this. In your Mother Teresa example, if she were to accept the pardon, she is admitting guilt. In cases where someone has been unjustly convicted, the court can overturn the conviction, but a pardon does not remove the guilt and, as I have stated and as is stated in Burdick v. United States, it carries the assumption of guilt. The reason for pardons (other than how Trump uses them which is to send messages and wield power) is to give prisoners or ex-prisoners their civil rights back (voting, gun ownership, etc.). If a President wants to end a prison sentence but not give civil rights back, they will Commute the sentence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBW17l6XfQ