But, since the decision generally isn't subject to review or oversight, there's often no way to know what factored into a pardon decision unless the President or governor explains it. See How do pardons work? Pardons generally assume the offender is guilty of the underlying offense, and that he or she has been rehabilitated. So, the President or a governor might deny a pardon to an offender who denies guilt.
Pardons can be revoked before they're delivered, but not after they are delivered and accepted—unless the offender fraudulently obtained it. Pardons symbolize forgiveness for the crime, but usually don't wipe out guilt or expunge the conviction.
This typically means that, where asked, job applicants must disclose the conviction , though they can add that a pardon was granted. It also means courts can consider pardoned offenses when deciding the appropriate punishment for any future crimes.
See below for more on the effects of pardons. For much more on the job-application issue, including state-specific information, see State Laws on Use of Arrests and Convictions in Employment.
There are different types of pardons, each having its own effect. Pardons can be full or partial, absolute or conditional. A pardon doesn't indicate the convicted person is innocent. Pardons generally don't expunge convictions. But, they will usually restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction.
So, pardons will generally restore:. A pardon may prevent deportation if the pardoned conviction is a deportable offense. A pardon doesn't affect any civil consequences that might flow from the crime. So, even someone who receives a pardon for murder may still be subject to a lawsuit for wrongful death. Pardons also tend not to affect administrative consequences, such as license suspensions.
Article II, Section 2 of the U. Constitution designates the President as the only person with the power to grant pardons and reprieves for federal crimes. The Constitution prohibits the President from pardoning impeached officials but he can issue pardons for the crimes that led to the impeachment.
All applications for a presidential pardon must be submitted through, and reviewed by, the Department of Justice. According to the department's rules for clemency petitions, no one may apply for a pardon until five years after release from prison. The government can only release what it holds. See also Knote , 95 U. Hodges v. Snyder , U. Thus, whether the restitution order is remitted by the pardon depends on whether the order creates a vested right for the victim.
A vested right is one the conferral of which is complete and consummated. Madison , 5 U. With respect to rights affected by a presidential pardon, the Court has stated:. The property and the proceeds are not considered as so absolutely vesting in third parties or in the United States as to be unaffected by the pardon until they have passed out of the jurisdiction of the officer or tribunal. The proceeds have thus [vested] when paid over to the individual entitled to them, in the one case, or are covered into the treasury, in the other.
Knote , 95 U. Thus, we do not believe that restitution orders issued pursuant to 18 U. Prior to that time, the victim does not exercise the complete control over the property required for a right to be vested. Although 18 U. To the contrary, a restitution order results from a criminal proceeding that adjudicates guilt and it is issued as part of the offender's sentence. Its character is undeniably penal rather than compensatory.
As the Court reasoned in Kelly v. Robinson , U. Although restitution does resemble a judgment "for the benefit of" the victim, the context in which it is imposed undermines that conclusion.
The victim has no control over the amount of restitution awarded or over the decision to award restitution. Moreover, the decision to impose restitution generally does not turn on the victim's injury, but on the penal goals of the State and the situation of the defendant. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has held that a victim does not have Article III standing to challenge the revocation of a restitution order.
United States v. Johnson , F. Other courts have relied on similar reasoning to deny alleged victims standing to challenge the terms of a restitution order under both the Constitution and 18 U. See United States v. Kelley , F. Grundhoefer , F. Based on these decisions, it is clear that a victim does not have complete control over a restitution award prior to receiving it. Rather, he or she is allowed to collect only pursuant to the terms set forth by the court. Thus, no rights or interests vest in the victim upon the issuance of a restitution order.
Because a pardon eliminates all penalties that do not create vested rights in a third party, we conclude that a full and unconditional presidential pardon has the effect of remitting court-ordered criminal restitution that has not yet been received by the victim.
Of course, as should already be clear from the foregoing discussion, the pardon cannot remit a restitution award that the victim has received. Once the victim takes possession, the Executive no longer has control over the award. As the Court stated in Knote , "if the proceeds of the sale have been paid to a party to whom the law has assigned them, they cannot be subsequently reached and recovered by the offender.
The rights of the parties have become vested, and are as complete as if they were acquired in any other legal way. Therefore, any restitution awards that have been received by the victim prior to the granting of the pardon are not recoverable by the offender. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that a full and unconditional pardon precludes the exercise of the authority to deport a person pursuant to 8 U.
We note, however, that the President can leave undisturbed any of these consequences by expressly stating that their continued existence is a condition of the pardon. Subsequently, on September 30, , that section was redesignated as section of the INA, and was thereafter recodified as 8 U. See Pub. In Garland , at issue was an act of Congress that attempted to exclude from the practice of law all persons who had participated in the Rebellion.
The Court determined that this exclusion was a punishment for the offense of treason. In other words, the Court concluded that, despite Congress's attempt to present its Act as setting qualifications for a profession, it was actually an attempt to exact additional punishment for an offense.
The Court held that the Act could not be applied to Garland becaue the President's pardon prohibited the plaintiff from being punished for the offense of treason. To hold that he could be punished under this new law would subvert the President's clemency power. The only president who has ever obtained a pardon was Richard Nixon. After he resigned, his successor, President Gerald Ford, granted him a full pardon for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president, shielding Nixon from criminal charges related to the Watergate scandal.
The answer is unclear. That, in turn, would create the opportunity for the courts to settle the debate. The Constitution only grants the ability to pardon people of federal crimes, so even if the courts found that the president could pardon himself, it would not excuse him from violations of state laws, several of which he is in danger of being prosecuted for.
President Trump is also in legal peril in New York, where he is facing a string of investigations. And Cyrus Vance Jr. Predicting that the president might attempt to self-pardon, New York State enacted legislation in October permitting state prosecutions when a person — even President Trump himself — has received a presidential pardon for federal crimes that could be the basis of state or local crimes.
President Barack Obama granted more than 1, commutation requests , more than every other president over the previous half-century combined.
Pre-emptive pardons do, not, however apply to offenses not yet committed. The president can tell a thief not to worry about being convicted for the crime he has committed yesterday because he has pardoned him. But a pardon today cannot forgive a crime the thief commits tomorrow. Perhaps the most important is that the president can only pardon federal offenses; he cannot interfere with state prosecutions.
Also, the pardoning power only extends to criminal offenses; it does not preclude civil actions. Thus, in one case, despite a strong separation of powers argument to the contrary, the Supreme Court held that the president could pardon a person jailed for criminal contempt of court.
It simply erases the penalties and at least some disabilities attendant on a conviction. Where a person has paid a monetary penalty or forfeited property, the consequences of a pardon depend in part on when it was issued. If a monetary fine or contraband cash has been transferred to the Treasury, a pardon conveys no right to a refund, nor does the person pardoned have a right to reacquire property or the equivalent in cash from a legitimate purchaser of his seized assets or from an informant who was rewarded with cash taken from the pardoned person before he was pardoned.
If, however, a person is pardoned before title to money or property has fully vested in a person or entity, the money will be refunded unless the conditions of the pardon preclude this. Also, a pardon cannot be forced on a person who declines to accept it, either explicitly by acknowledging it or implicitly by taking advantage of the pardon.
The right to reject a pardon is justified by the prevailing view that accepting a pardon, except where the pardon is based on innocence, is a tacit admission of guilt. Hence, shame or other reasons for rejecting a pardon mean that a refusal to accept a pardon must be honored. The same rule does not, however, apply to sentence commutations which are seen as inherent in the power to pardon.
If, as has happened a number of times in our history, a federal judge has been impeached or removed from office, the president cannot reverse the action.
It seems similarly clear that even if a president can pardon himself for crimes he has committed an issue I discuss below his pardon power does not extend to forgiving crimes and misdemeanors that the House might charge in a bill of impeachment.
0コメント