If a governor or president can give a pardon, do they have the power to overturn a courts decision and convict or extend a sentence?

If a governor or president can give a pardon, do they have the power to overturn a courts decision and convict or extend a sentence?

 

No. If a person is acquitted of a crime double jeopardy would prevent anyone else from "convicting" them. In the US once acquitted it's over.

Settled by the parties, but not necessarily a representation of equitable justice for the accussed. You obviously understand the system, yet you won't acknowledge that this process is tainted ?

 

Do you think that pardons have no input or discussion ?

 

Pardons tend to not be open and shut conviction, they typically contain information that are unaccounted for during the trial process, many times because of procedural issues.

 

Pardons level the playing field in the justice arena

 

Sure there is input and discussion, but generally only from the side requesting the pardon. They are the one's pushing the issue for whatever reason. These cases are often chosen based on the political bent of the office holder, picking and choosing the types of offenses that will garner the most political payback. It is very unlikely that the advocates for the victims of the original crime have any input in this process. There is a very recent, very local case that bears this out, as the local Prosecutors office was never notified of the pending decision and were caught completely off guard when the release was announced. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that such unilateral decisions level the playing field.

No. If a person is acquitted of a crime double jeopardy would prevent anyone else from "convicting" them. In the US once acquitted it's over.

 

I Thought double jeopardy was once convicted, you couldn't be convicted on the same crime again. Re the Ashley Judd movie by the same name.

If a governor or president can give a pardon, do they have the power to overturn a courts decision and convict or extend a sentence?

 

No.

 

Commutation Instructions | PARDON | Department of Justice

I Thought double jeopardy was once convicted, you couldn't be convicted on the same crime again. Re the Ashley Judd movie by the same name.

 

It's an ancient principle. Started in Roman Civil law "ne bis in idem", literally, "not twice the same thing."

 

You can't be tried again on the same or similar charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

If you believe that most cases are not settled in chamber or the prosecutors table prior to the judges arrival....again, please dig deeper. Juries are exceptions rather than rules on most dockets

I agree, I've sat in district court 100's of times and taken part in those discussions between the prosecutor and defense attorney many times. Day in and day out the attorneys representing the two sides have a deal that the defendant agrees to before the case is ever called. That said, the defendant always has the option of not taking the deal and going to trial.

 

In all of the cases that I have been involved with I only had to testify once and even then there was no jury.

Sure there is input and discussion, but generally only from the side requesting the pardon. They are the one's pushing the issue for whatever reason. These cases are often chosen based on the political bent of the office holder, picking and choosing the types of offenses that will garner the most political payback. It is very unlikely that the advocates for the victims of the original crime have any input in this process. There is a very recent, very local case that bears this out, as the local Prosecutors office was never notified of the pending decision and were caught completely off guard when the release was announced. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that such unilateral decisions level the playing field.

 

Probably from the view of the different side of the same coin you use to believe that there is actually a "level playing field" in the justice system....

 

Why do you feel it is necessary to notify the prosecutors office ? They have already completed their part of the work.

 

If the case you are referring to is the McCafferty case, then it is important to understand that the person who is upset is the ego-maniacal namesake legacy judge who may or may not be on her medication on any given day that is really upset.

I agree, I've sat in district court 100's of times and taken part in those discussions between the prosecutor and defense attorney many times. Day in and day out the attorneys representing the two sides have a deal that the defendant agrees to before the case is ever called. That said, the defendant always has the option of not taking the deal and going to trial.

 

In all of the cases that I have been involved with I only had to testify once and even then there was no jury.

 

Correct, the only problem is that the option to go to jury trial usually has a caveat of fullest extent penalty so defendants must choose to roll the dice in front of jury...if you lose, the cost is typically so much greater it's not really an option.

On one hand, you question me when I make the point that these decisions lack input from both sides, and on the other, you state that there should be no input or discussion from the prosecutor's side. You need to make up your mind how you want to argue your view.

 

I understand from this post that you come from a position of mistrust of what I consider to be the best, most fair Judicial system in the world. We will have to simply disagree on that point as I am sure this forum will not change either of our minds. That said, I find it incredible for you to state that the only person upset with the McCafferty decision is the ruling Judge. Are you serious?

It's an ancient principle. Started in Roman Civil law "ne bis in idem", literally, "not twice the same thing."

 

You can't be tried again on the same or similar charges in the same case following a legitimate acquittal or conviction.

Yet a governor or president can reverse and remove the charges to free someone that has been convicted, but not reverse an acquittal?

Yet a governor or president can reverse and remove the charges to free someone that has been convicted, but not reverse an acquittal?

 

The idea being that, in a free republic, it's very difficult to take away someone's rights to life, liberty, and property. It's easier to get them back.

The idea being that, in a free republic, it's very difficult to take away someone's rights to life, liberty, and property. It's easier to get them back.

 

Unless of course that someone happens to be an unborn child. Then Liberals have no problems taking these things from them...

Unless of course that someone happens to be an unborn child. Then Liberals have no problems taking these things from them...

 

I've spent my entire life wrestling with folks over that one and gotten seemingly nowhere. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of mental hurdles one has to jump to justify it and once you find that you're willing to make them, you're willing to jump just about anywhere.

I've spent my entire life wrestling with folks over that one and gotten seemingly nowhere. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of mental hurdles one has to jump to justify it and once you find that you're willing to make them, you're willing to jump just about anywhere.

 

There is a special place in Hell for those who enable infanticide.