Zone1 Must a Pardon be accepted, and does accepting a pardon mean, admitting guilt?

[Seymour Flops]

This keeps coming up, but it has not been intelligently debated.

I say that pardon is a presidential or gubernatorial power. Therefore, any given pardon means exactly what the president or governor says that it means.

If a pardon specifically says something like “accepting this pardon is an admission of guilt” then, of course it would be. Otherwise a pardon is a pardon and nothing more.

 

[JoeB131]

This keeps coming up, but it has not been intelligently debated.

I say that pardon is a presidential or gubernatorial power. Therefore, any given pardon means exactly what the president or governor says that it means.

If a pardon specifically says something like “accepting this pardon is an admission of guilt” then, of course it would be. Otherwise a pardon is a pardon and nothing more.

I think the issue is whether a pardon can be immunity from prosecution.


When Ford pardoned Nixon, Nixon hadn't been Tried, Indicted, or charged. But the pardon effectively ended all further legal action against him.

Same when Bush Sr. pardoned Cap Weinberger. He had only been indicted a second time after a judge dismissed the first batch of chargers.

(As an aside, I think the indictment of Cap was obscene. Weinberger was the only guy in the room stating that trading arms for hostages was a terrible idea. He was charged for lying about keeping a diary because he didn't consider his meeting notes to be a diary.)

 

[theHawk]

This keeps coming up, but it has not been intelligently debated.

I say that pardon is a presidential or gubernatorial power. Therefore, any given pardon means exactly what the president or governor says that it means.

If a pardon specifically says something like “accepting this pardon is an admission of guilt” then, of course it would be. Otherwise a pardon is a pardon and nothing more.

It’s not “admitting guilt”. It’s admitting someone is the victim of a rigged and unfair “Justice system”.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It’s not “admitting guilt”. It’s admitting someone is the victim of a rigged and unfair “Justice system”.

If a president or a governor pardons a person or a group of persons and includes those exact words in the pardon, then I agree that is exactly what it would mean.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This keeps coming up, but it has not been intelligently debated.

I say that pardon is a presidential or gubernatorial power. Therefore, any given pardon means exactly what the president or governor says that it means.

If a pardon specifically says something like “accepting this pardon is an admission of guilt” then, of course it would be. Otherwise a pardon is a pardon and nothing more.

Pardons don't work that way. The party seeking the pardon must apply. It isn't offered by either president or governor. There's no accepting guilt, merely fulfilling the requirements of asking for a pardon.

 

[BackAgain]

This keeps coming up, but it has not been intelligently debated.

I say that pardon is a presidential or gubernatorial power. Therefore, any given pardon means exactly what the president or governor says that it means.

If a pardon specifically says something like “accepting this pardon is an admission of guilt” then, of course it would be. Otherwise a pardon is a pardon and nothing more.

While I agree with your analysis, court cases claim otherwise.

That ought to be rectified.

 

[BackAgain]

Pardons don't work that way. The party seeking the pardon must apply.

Not always.

It isn't offered by either president or governor.

It sure can be.

There's no accepting guilt, merely fulfilling the requirements of asking for a pardon.

Some court cases have said that accepting a pardon necessarily constitutes an admission of the underlying charges.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Not always.


It sure can be.

Some court cases have said that accepting a pardon necessarily constitutes an admission of the underlying charges.

Since the person has to apply for a pardon, there is no offer to accept. Someone that doesn't want a pardon doesn't have to bother asking for one.

The criteria for applying for a pardon is normally on the internet under the state governor 's page of state offices.

 

[BackAgain]

Since the person has to apply for a pardon, there is no offer to accept.

You’re wrong none need not apply.

Someone that doesn't want a pardon doesn't have to bother asking for one.

One who is granted a pardon need not accept it.

The criteria for applying for a pardon is normally on the internet under the state governor 's page of state offices.

One is permitted to apply. The process of applying is what it is. But the point remains, one may get a pardon without having to ask.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You’re wrong none need not apply.

One who is granted a pardon need not accept it.

One is permitted to apply. The process of applying is what it is. But the point remains, one may get a pardon without having to ask.

Post your authority

 

[BackAgain]

Post your authority

You start. You being the proponent.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You start. You being the proponent.

You are asking me to prove a negative. You say that you know of pardon that,were offered unasked. Show us.

 

[BackAgain]

You are asking me to prove a negative. You say that you know of pardon that,were offered unasked. Show us.

No. I’m asking you to state the source for your own claim.

If you can’t do it, that’s fine. I knew you were just making shit up.

Do you have any support for your contention

Show us.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Pardons don't work that way. The party seeking the pardon must apply. It isn't offered by either president or governor. There's no accepting guilt, merely fulfilling the requirements of asking for a pardon.

I’d be interested to see the application Nixon filled out for his pardon from Ford.

Also his signed acceptance with the admission of guilt.

Do you have a link?

 

[Seymour Flops]

While I agree with your analysis, court cases claim otherwise.

That ought to be rectified.

Yes, and we have just the court to do it, too.

 

[BackAgain]

I’d be interested to see the application Nixon filled out for his pardon from Ford.

Also his signed acceptance with the admission of guilt.

Do you have a link?

There was no such application. (Although Nixon with some lawyers on his behalf did negotiate the details of the prospective unconditional pardon.)

Evil cat won’t disclose it, but if s/he had any support for his/her claim, s/he’s likely misunderstanding this federal rule:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

However, that rule is explicitly for those seeking clench. That’s not at all the same as getting clemency without even asking for it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I’d be interested to see the application Nixon filled out for his pardon from Ford.

Also his signed acceptance with the admission of guilt.

Do you have a link?

I am not providing a link to every governor's office in the country and the criteria for a pardon. The Nixon pardon was done by presidential proclamation for the good of the country. The purpose of the pardon was to put a final end to everything Nixon so Ford would not be addressing Nixon issues.

In 1977. Nixon expressed regret but did not admit guilt. Some Americans who watched the broadcast felt that was enough. For a man whose whole life was politics, his admission that he “let down the American people” and that he would have to carry that burden for the rest of his life may have been a greater humiliation than any confession to the crime of obstructing justice.

What you might be confused about is Burdick v. United States It was a 1915 case in which George Burdick was unilaterally given a pardon to force him to testify against codefendants. Burdick refused to testify even when offered immunity. The judge ruled that such a pardon had to accept the pardon in open court. Acceptance would be an admission of guilt. Burdick accepted nothing. Never testified and asserted his 5th amendment rights.

Courts have never required an acceptance of guilt. Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[1] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[3] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[4]

Certainly the Burdick decision cannot be construed as a general policy of offering unasked for pardons.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There was no such application. (Although Nixon with some lawyers on his behalf did negotiate the details of the prospective unconditional pardon.)

Evil cat won’t disclose it, but if s/he had any support for his/her claim, s/he’s likely misunderstanding this federal rule:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

However, that rule is explicitly for those seeking clench. That’s not at all the same as getting clemency without even asking for it.

I understand the federal rule just fine. I've been trying to explain it to people who must be democrats.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It turns out that Ford and Nixon talked at length about whether a pardon would be contingent on an admission of guilt:

The Ford White House considered a pardon of Nixon, but it would be unpopular in the country. Nixon, contacted by Ford emissaries, was initially reluctant to accept the pardon but then agreed to do so. Ford, however, insisted on a statement of contrition; Nixon felt he had not committed any crimes and should not have to issue such a document. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon" that ended any possibility of an indictment.

I am not providing a link to every governor's office in the country and the criteria for a pardon. The Nixon pardon was done by presidential proclamation for the good of the country. The purpose of the pardon was to put a final end to everything Nixon so Ford would not be addressing Nixon issues.

Fair enough. I know my OP is about pardon's in general, but the hot button issue in the media right now is specifically a presidential pardon, so I'd only need a link to that criteria. It does not appear to have changed since the Nixon/Ford era as described above.

In 1977. Nixon expressed regret but did not admit guilt. Some Americans who watched the broadcast felt that was enough. For a man whose whole life was politics, his admission that he “let down the American people” and that he would have to carry that burden for the rest of his life may have been a greater humiliation than any confession to the crime of obstructing justice.

You could argue that it was a greater humiliation. But you could not argue that it was a confession of a crime of any sort.

What you might be confused about is Burdick v. United States It was a 1915 case in which George Burdick was unilaterally given a pardon to force him to testify against codefendants. Burdick refused to testify even when offered immunity. The judge ruled that such a pardon had to accept the pardon in open court. Acceptance would be an admission of guilt. Burdick accepted nothing. Never testified and asserted his 5th amendment rights.

I wasn't confused about it, I was opening it up for discussion. Yes, what you say above is true and would have nothing to do with any presidential pardon or pardon of a president, if no one was attempting to require anyone to accept a pardon and admit guilt.

At the end of every presidential term, there are a tronch of reported presidential pardons, but I never heard of anyone having to "accept" them or admit guilt.

Courts have never required an acceptance of guilt. Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it,"[1] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case.[3] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion."[4]

Yes, that is the more important decision for current events. If Trump had been convicted, i.e. found guilty and sentenced, and then was pardoned, he could "accept" the pardon without losing his right to appeal the conviction. If he had been convicted.

Certainly the Burdick decision cannot be construed as a general policy of offering unasked for pardons.

Agreed.

But pardons can be offered unasked, if that is the policy of the pardoning authority.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It turns out that Ford and Nixon talked at length about whether a pardon would be contingent on an admission of guilt:

The Ford White House considered a pardon of Nixon, but it would be unpopular in the country. Nixon, contacted by Ford emissaries, was initially reluctant to accept the pardon but then agreed to do so. Ford, however, insisted on a statement of contrition; Nixon felt he had not committed any crimes and should not have to issue such a document. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon" that ended any possibility of an indictment.


Fair enough. I know my OP is about pardon's in general, but the hot button issue in the media right now is specifically a presidential pardon, so I'd only need a link to that criteria. It does not appear to have changed since the Nixon/Ford era as described above.

You could argue that it was a greater humiliation. But you could not argue that it was a confession of a crime of any sort.

I wasn't confused about it, I was opening it up for discussion. Yes, what you say above is true and would have nothing to do with any presidential pardon or pardon of a president, if no one was attempting to require anyone to accept a pardon and admit guilt.

At the end of every presidential term, there are a tronch of reported presidential pardons, but I never heard of anyone having to "accept" them or admit guilt.

Yes, that is the more important decision for current events. If Trump had been convicted, i.e. found guilty and sentenced, and then was pardoned, he could "accept" the pardon without losing his right to appeal the conviction. If he had been convicted.


Agreed.

But pardons can be offered unasked, if that is the policy of the pardoning authority.

Can you find a pardoning authority with that policy?
No.
Ford may have insisted on a statement of contrition. He never got it.

At the end of every presidential term there is a flurry of pardon. Everyone was requested.