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

 

That's not the way our system works. Actually, the system is designed so that the person who brought the charges can not individually convict the suspect. So to say, "that's the way our system is set up" is wrong.

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?

 

Or maybe in some cases it is just politics.

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.

 

I do understand the differences, but I also accept that the system is not entirely fair either way, but it's the system we have. Sometimes it works flawlessly, other times, not so much. Why would want to exclude one piece of the system in favor of another ?

I do understand the differences, but I also accept that the system is not entirely fair either way, but it's the system we have. Sometimes it works flawlessly, other times, not so much. Why would want to exclude one piece of the system in favor of another ?

 

Exactly! If we are going to have an appeal process for convictions, shouldn't we also have an appeal process for pardons?

That's not the way our system works. Actually, the system is designed so that the person who brought the charges can not individually convict the suspect. So to say, "that's the way our system is set up" is wrong.

 

I am intimately aware of how the system works. The prosecuting attorney has sole power and authority to bring the charge(s), they then have the sole ability to structure the case and presentation. That 1 individual ultimately decides whether or not others will make any determination in the case as to innocence or guilt.

 

Let's not underestimate the power of a prosecutor in bringing the charges....that sets the tone for the future.

Exactly! If we are going to have an appeal process for convictions, shouldn't we also have an appeal process for pardons?

 

We don't, so no. If we did, then I could say, yes, but we don't, so we are not leaving anything out. You are inferring we should change the system to accomodate a piece that is already in place.

We don't, so no. If we did, then I could say, yes, but we don't, so we are not leaving anything out. You are inferring we should change the system to accomodate a piece that is already in place.

 

Just so I'm clear on what you saying, are you saying that because it is not part of the law, that it shouldn't be part of the law? It seems like that's what you are saying, but I cant imagine anyone actually believing that that line of thinking holds true.

Random thoughts:

 

1. A jury listened to the evidence and found her guilty, I see nothing that changes that. In other words, if BGP was the jury we would surely be a hung jury but in real life it was unanimous.

 

2. I would like to see the complete pardon application. It is funny, one man granted the pardon, he didn't consult with the people in the system that knew the most about the case and he isn't sharing his reasoning or the application he used to make the determination.

 

3. For any of you that believe domestic abuse is misunderstood (or only you understand it), maybe in a given case, but that is not the issue other than you need to prove it.

 

4. The issue here is our criminal justice system. When one man with the stroke of a pen can undo tens of thousands of man/woman hours that is scary. A pardon might be a great thing one time out of a thousand (maybe this is that one time) but it is downright scary. Or, when college campuses start passing judgement on whether a rape took place or not without a trial, it is downright scary. Or, anytime some higher level of authority in life points their finger at you and says "Off with your head!"

 

We need to stick real close to how our legal system was set up. As soon as you get ANYONE in authority that is given the power to "know better" and take action without due process we are DONE as a FREE country.

Exactly! If we are going to have an appeal process for convictions, shouldn't we also have an appeal process for pardons?

 

Who would be doing the appealing? You have a better argument that we should get rid of pardons altogether as opposed to instituting an appellate process.

Who would be doing the appealing? You have a better argument that we should get rid of pardons altogether as opposed to instituting an appellate process.

 

FWIW I agree with you that I think pardons should be done with. But in the hypothetical case where a pardon was appealed, I would think it would be up to the prosecutor to represent his case to a jury. The Governor would act as the defending attorney. A case would be held to reexamine the offenses, evaluate the grounds for pardoning, and eventually be run by and determined upon by a jury. Just my thoughts on how it would go down.

Or maybe in some cases it is just politics.

 

Today that is likely true. That is why I wonder historically speaking, what the purpose of it was meant to be.

Was 1st degree manslaughter at one time, however, a full pardon wipes that clean from the record...so, no she wasn't convicted of murder.

 

No, it doesn't. A pardon does not expunge the conviction.

Again, no. Threatening someone is not the same as physical abuse. Threatening someone can be characterized dangerous situation, but does not imply that she was being beaten.

 

But if you say that she had the chance to get out of the situation when I proposed the "threat" then doesn't that also mean she had time to get out of the relationship if she had been previously beaten?

I read somewhere that, statistically speaking, the chances of a woman getting killed by an abusive husband is when she chooses to leave him. According to the news, he had just found out that she was talking to a divorce lawyer.

 

If he had been physically and emotionally abusive to her during their marriage, and if he told her, as reported, he would kill their children if she did not kill herself, and put a gun to her head, I would say it might be justified. He might not have been threatening her at the moment she shot him, but her past experiences with him, may have made her believe that he would make good on his threats. Women who suffer abuse know it is not as simple as "just call the police," particularly when your spouse has the "great guy" image that he portrayed outside the home. He may very well have pushed her to the point where she truly thought it was her only solution.

 

I am not saying this particular case was or was not justified, just that I can see where it could be. No one really know what goes on in other people's homes.

 

I bet there is another statistic out there that says a man's abuse of a women is drastically reduced when she in fact leaves him. As a matter of fact I bet there is a whole bunch of information out there telling the woman this is exactly what she needs to do, leave/get away from the abuser. Possibly even when he is sleeping if need be...

 

Of course when we make a big change like separation in life it brings lots of things to a head.

 

We can all think about it however we like but it certainly isn't a defense for murder.

But if you say that she had the chance to get out of the situation when I proposed the "threat" then doesn't that also mean she had time to get out of the relationship if she had been previously beaten?

 

Yes? I'm not sure what you're going for here?