Preserve the Mercy of Pardon Power, Even If Presidents Misuse It
While overturning sentences through courts can take years, a grant of clemency is instantaneous.

The end of a presidential administration always brings with it a last-minute pardon spree. In recent years the practice has led pundits and politicians to worry that the men occupying the Oval Office don't have the ethics to handle such broad power.
Outgoing President Joe Biden ignited controversy this time around when he pardoned his son Hunter, even though Biden previously promised the American public that he wouldn't interfere in the prosecution.
Under pressure from a coalition of criminal justice advocacy and religious groups, Biden also commuted the sentences of all but three of the 40 inmates on federal death row, reducing their punishment to life in prison. In this case, the pardon power was a substitute (or autocratic workaround, Biden's critics charged) for death penalty abolition legislation that Biden promised during the 2020 campaign but that he and Democratic leadership never had any real stomach for.
Controversy over the pardon power will certainly continue. Before Biden left office, he preemptively pardoned more of his family and several members of his administration under the justification that they were potential targets of the Trump administration, which has vowed revenge on its many political enemies. Meanwhile, Donald Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of his supporters who were convicted for participating in the January 6 Capitol riot, including many who assaulted police.
In recent years, lawmakers in Congress have proposed constitutional amendments to stop presidents from pardoning themselves, family members, and cronies. But while it's been amply demonstrated over the past two administrations that pardons can be used for self-serving ends—nepotism, buying loyalty, shielding unrepentant lackeys—they are still a crucial check on judicial and legislative excess.
The U.S. justice system heavily values finality in sentencing, and overturning sentences through courts or reform legislation, even when everyone agrees there's been a mistake, can take years, even decades. A grant of clemency is instantaneous and unchallengeable.
Trump's last-minute pardon spree during his first term included commuting the sentence of Chris Young. Young was sentenced to life in prison for his role in a drug trafficking ring. After he refused a plea deal and exercised his right to trial, prosecutors used a federal "three strikes" law to enhance his sentence to life. None of his co-defendants, including the alleged ringleader, received life.
Among the people granted clemency by Biden were more than a dozen nonviolent drug offenders who received significantly longer sentences than they would have if they had been convicted today. Their draconian sentences were the result of legislation championed by then-Sen. Joe Biden in the 1980s.
The pardon power is a rare instance where our government has enshrined the quality of mercy. That's a virtue we should value and preserve in our leaders.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Preserving Mercy in Presidential Pardons."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Cauliflower (Brain damaged Biden) pardoned a lot more than just his drug addlepated crackhead son. He pardoned his entire family, something Ciaramella seemingly overlooked. (what a surprise)
The Founders had good reason to give the POTUS absolute pardon power. No need to disturb it.
There are obvious fixes for the worst abuses of the pardon power. No preemptive pardons - how can you pardon an unknown or unacknowledged crime? And no wiping crimes off the books - what do we have courts for if a jury's work can be wiped out of existence? And of course, no self-pardons or family members. Biden's pardons were grotesque, and should never happen again. And perhaps limit death penalty pardons to one per term. No more bulk shopping.
There does not need to be any fixes.
People who are pardoned are still subject to civil suit for the alleged acts.
A pardon needs a scope other than "all actions prior to today". It's one thing to get ahead of the AG on something specific but the Biden pardons were ridiculously broad for them to be related to justice in any way.
Self-pardons are obviously not allowed. Preemptive pardons are also ok and have been used many times before without issue. The only pardon of Biden's family that was iffy was Hunter's. And one could make a solid argument that Hunter was prosecuted harsher than others in similar circumstances.
Trump's pardon of the J6 attempted coup participants was a direct threat on democracy.
"Preemptive pardons are also ok and have been used many times before without issue."
One single time is "many"?
I dare say there is no such thing as a preemptive pardon. It's called immunity. Pardon assumes something to be pardoned for.
You can call Biden a crime family because of the pardons. People who don't commit crimes don't need pardons.
Ok. Let's say someone did something in May that very much could be a crime and prosecuted in August and convicted in October. They can not be pardoned in April since they have not done it yet. They can be pardoned November because they have already been convicted, they can be pardoned in September because they have been charged. Are you arguing they could not be pardoned in June?
"" Let's say someone did something in May""
Proves my point right there.
What was the something that the people who Biden pardoned did?
""They can not be pardoned in April since they have not done it yet.""
The is in regard to the timeline. Pardons do not affect future activity. Even so called preemptive pardons cover past dates.
To answer your question,
If someone did something in May, they could be pardoned in June. They could be pardoned in May. They could be pardoned any time after the fact.
But you seem to agree there has to be a "something" there to pardon.
No, of course not. There does not have to be "something to pardon". A president can issue a pardon for an act that is not illegal, or the legality is questionable.
Example: In November a protester pisses many people off but he did not do anything illegal. In January a new administration is going to take office that has promised to arrest and prosecute that person anyhow. A president can pardon them in December.
You know, I think it's worse that he pardoned the entire ACLU list of 'nonviolent' drug offenders without apparently anyone doing any due diligence whatsoever. Turns out it involved some pretty actually violent people, like a guy who was in jail for murdering witnesses - a mom and her kid - so heinously that the state they lived in started their own witness protection program afterwards.
That guy can still be sued by the victims' estates for wrongful death.
Can they do jail time for that or is it only a monetary penalty?
Monetary.
Jail time can be threated if you interfere with the payout. Ask Rudy Guliani.
Suing some fucked-up murdering criminal for money isn't justice.
Killing a witness deserves the death penalty, pardon or no pardon.
Big fucking deal. JFC you putting a couple of plug nickels on the value of lived ones has to be more ghoulish than than anything.
If the pardons all look like self serving and nepotism, then there aren't enough pardons. If there aren't enough pardons, then we are electing vile people
Multiple Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have abused the pardon power. It is time for it to be curtailed. No self-pardons, no pardons from November of a presidential election year to noon of the following January 20. Any amendment that would modify the pardon power should do at least this much. I know amending the Constitution is extremely difficult, by design, but the effort should be made in this case.
Well, which is it? Can you make up your minds whether instant mercy - like the uncontrolled power to issue executive orders - is too dangerous for one elected official to hold, or a blessing since Congress cannot be relied upon in "our democracy [tm]" to do the right thing any more? I'm experiencing whiplash from the pendulum swings in "Reason" basic principles here!
Sorry, I don't buy it. While the best situation would be to have politicians with integrity, both parties have shown that they're more interested in winning than in having integrity. The extraordinary pre-emptive pardon of Nixon by Ford has now been bastardized and trivialized; one can now expect that every president, at the end of his term of office, will issue a blanket pardon to his associates. They'll be expecting it, which means that the rule of law no longer applies to them.
The pardon power has proven to be too great a temptation to leave in the hands of one man; it's a vestige of royalty that has no place in our republic. If it were eliminated, Congress could pass a law to structure a shared pardon power, where the president proposes pardons and Congress can have an expedited procedure for consideration, but everyone gets to see the proposal before it's implemented, so pardons like Marc Rich, Hunter Biden, and the violent actors of January 6 will be subject to public reaction. True injustices can be resolved, and corruption will be (mostly) stopped.
I have two caveats for Pardons: 1) No preemptive pardons and 2) Pardons cannot be granted between Election day and one day after Inauguration day.
Trump's last-minute pardon spree during his first term included commuting the sentence of Chris Young.
Am I being left to determine on my own if this is a good or bad thing?