I have been advised not to.

 

I highly respect this position.

No, I understand she was convicted of 1st degree MS, not murder, hence the reason for credit and pardon...wasn't implying that.

 

Never once have I denied that she pulled the trigger, anywhere. A pardon is a pardon though, just like the conviction on the other end, opposite sides of the same coin. If we convict and we have a pardon system in place, then we have to acknowledge that as much as the conviction, right ?

 

Or do we only place our belief in the criminal justice system when it works out to our own preconcieved ideas of justice and dismiss the rest?

 

From a procedural standpoint, the difference between a conviction and pardon is that, when a conviction is levied there is an appeal process available. The convicted is able to ask for an appeal to have the case re-evaluated. There is an opportunity for the convicted to have the charges dropped in the event that the appeal finds that the charges were wrong.

 

Is there an appeal process for a pardon? I am unaware of it, but I think it would be a good idea to examine the possibilities of having one.

Nope, She was convicted of first degree manslaughter.

Don't try to play the fact that a pardon wipes out what she did. She was still convicted of manslaughter which means she still killed her husband. She just now has the right to vote and own a firearm and is no longer considered to be a felon.

 

And she also did her time.

And she also did her time.

 

And her husband is dead ! Is he considered to be a victim of domestic abuse?

From a procedural standpoint, the difference between a conviction and pardon is that, when a conviction is levied there is an appeal process available. The convicted is able to ask for an appeal to have the case re-evaluated. There is an opportunity for the convicted to have the charges dropped in the event that the appeal finds that the charges were wrong.

 

Is there an appeal process for a pardon? I am unaware of it, but I think it would be a good idea to examine the possibilities of having one.

 

Didn't the judge rule that McCafferty was a domestic violence victim part of the sentencing?

And her husband is dead ! Is he considered to be a victim of domestic abuse?

 

That's our legal system at work for you.

From a procedural standpoint, the difference between a conviction and pardon is that, when a conviction is levied there is an appeal process available. The convicted is able to ask for an appeal to have the case re-evaluated. There is an opportunity for the convicted to have the charges dropped in the event that the appeal finds that the charges were wrong.

 

Is there an appeal process for a pardon? I am unaware of it, but I think it would be a good idea to examine the possibilities of having one.

 

I think her plea involved a waiver of the appeal process.

From a procedural standpoint, the difference between a conviction and pardon is that, when a conviction is levied there is an appeal process available. The convicted is able to ask for an appeal to have the case re-evaluated. There is an opportunity for the convicted to have the charges dropped in the event that the appeal finds that the charges were wrong.

 

Is there an appeal process for a pardon? I am unaware of it, but I think it would be a good idea to examine the possibilities of having one.

 

I believe pardon's are akin to executive orders

I don't have have children. But I have loved ones. All I know is if someone stuck a gun in my mouth or side and told me to kill myself or they would murder my loved ones, if given the opportunity I'd probably react the same way as Cheryl.

I believe pardon's are akin to executive orders

 

It is, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if we are going to have a system in place that is intended to prevent the innocent from going to prison (the appeal process) should we also have an equal system that is intended for preventing the guilty from being granted freedom, because one person thinks they should be free?

 

After the evidence has been presented, and a person has been charged with a crime, I don't think one person should have the ability to overturn that. Hence, the application of a pardon appeal.

I think her plea involved a waiver of the appeal process.

 

It did. I was more talking about general procedures.

I'd like to have heard what the kids might have said if they were allowed to testify.

 

Same here, although the reports of their support for their mother speaks volumes to me.

It is, but that wasn't my point. My point was that if we are going to have a system in place that is intended to prevent the innocent from going to prison (the appeal process) should we also have an equal system that is intended for preventing the guilty from being granted freedom, because one person thinks they should be free?

 

After the evidence has been presented, and a person has been charged with a crime, I don't think one person should have the ability to overturn that. Hence, the application of a pardon appeal.

 

In fairness, 1 person decided to bring the charge(s) against her, that's the way our system is set up.

Can any attorneys out there shed some light on the historical reason governors and presidents are given the power of the pardon?

 

Maybe the purpose is for them to be able to correct a situation that might be legally correct but morally incorrect?

In fairness, 1 person decided to bring the charge(s) against her, that's the way our system is set up.

 

Your are right, but did one person convict her? Did one person determine her guilt? Or was it a jury of multiple people, that took months of deliberation that relied on physical evidence?

 

Surely you see the difference between bringing charges against someone and over turning a court ruling.