Here’s a fact which seems to have escaped much media attention: Obama has been in office for nearly two years, and he hasn’t issued even a single pardon or commutation.
I understand Obama not wanting to appear like a stereotypical soft on crime liberal (and wanting to avoid any negative attack ads for 2012), but I believe that the Constitution gave the Executive the pardon power for a good reason, and that there are surely a number of persons in this country greater than 0 that deserve some forgiveness for their past crimes.
The article states that both Bill Clinton and George W Bush waited longer in their first term to issue pardons. It’s the new norm for presidents. Maybe he’ll start issuing pardons in his second term instead of risking something that can be used against him in re-election campaign.
It’s seems rather obvious that the risks of issuing a pardon in the first term are rather high, politically, especially in the current political climate. I would imagine the rates are significantly higher during second terms (and particularly towards the end of said terms).
Barack Obama took office January 20, 2009. He hasn’t pardoned anyone as of November 1, 2010, 650 days into his term. Your theory is that this is true because he doesn’t have criminals working for him whom he needs to pardon to get them to keep their mouths shut.
George W. Bush took office January 20, 2001. He didn’t pardon anyone until after November 1, 2010. In fact, his first pardons were issued December 20, 2002, 699 days into his first term.
We may therefore conclude that you also believe George W. Bush doesn’t have criminals working for him whom he needs to pardon to get them to keep their mouths shut, and you believe it about 8% more of Bush than Obama.
Presidents only do what is politically advantageous for them. Unless a person is absolutely innocent (as opposed to not guilty) there is no benefit from pardoning him before you’re ready to leave office.
Only when public opinion would demand it, would there be an real need to act before then.
No, the difference is that Bush faced Democrats, a group that is nearly completely passive. Bush could and did commit crimes without being criticized by them, much less investigated; short of Bush walking into Congress with a gun and opening fire on the assembled Congresspeople he was at essentially zero risk no matter what he did. As opposed to Obama, who faces the Republicans who are looking for any excuse to get him.
From looking at the actual list of Bush pardons, he was pretty cautious with them - he used the power sparingly (overly so, IMHO) and political considerations didn’t seem to influence the actual decisions at all.
I can see a couple of commutations for political considerations (Libby, Ramos, Compean). This isn’t terribly much by historical standards - indeed many presidents would have issued pardons instead of commutations in these cases.
All presidents (in recent times anyway) are way too stingy with pardons. It’s supposed to be part of the checks and balances, but too politically risky I guess.
I guess if you want to evaluate relative crookedness, you should wait until a president’s term is over and compare pardons or commutations issued to people who worked for the president’s administration (or for his political party, or something comparable).
So bump this thread in February 2013 or 2017, as relevant.
Clemency is a power that should be used stingily. It’s intended as a last resort to correct major errors of justice (see George Ryan in Illinois), not to get your friends out of jail.