More handpicked essays just for you.
The nature and importance of ethics in public administration
The nature and importance of ethics in public administration
The nature and importance of ethics in public administration
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Another issue in the American presidency is the power to pardon. The president’s pardon power comes from Article II, section 2 of the Constitution which gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” (Love 2007). However, there are restrictions to this power as the president can only pardon federal crimes and not state ones. Pardons are sought out through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, which helps the president by reviewing and investigating the requested pardon before it is sent to the White House. So far, Joe Arpaio is the only person who has been pardoned by President Donald Trump, but there are several hundred other people who also requested pardons. …show more content…
Pardons and sentence commutations have been granted regularly and frequently, and sometimes that power was exploited and has great potential to be exploited (Love 2007). While there is clearly criminal injustice, pardons can serve as a way to remedy the injustices, but it is also vulnerable to misuse (Love 2007). For example, in the Lewis Libby case, Bush found the sentencing to be unreasonably punitive even though it was lawfully ordained (Love 2007). As the president, he had the power to influence the court to reassess other similar cases which could set the precedence for tolerating other similar crimes. While this particular case is not necessarily very likely to compel Congress or the Judicial system to change sentencing protocol, the power of pardons can potentially lead to …show more content…
The reform would aim to prevent any presidential abuse of the pardoning power. Creating a small, bipartisan Presidential Clemency Board would serve to limit and restrain the president's pardon authority. Even though the power is listed in the constitution, an amendment can be made to change this. The Presidential Clemency Board would consist of the President and four congress members (Menitove 2009). At least two of the members should be from the same party as the president and come from the House Judiciary Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Senate Ethics Committee (Menitove 2009). These individuals will probably have legal and judicial backgrounds. In addition, the president would need the at least 3 members of the board to come to a consensus as to when to issue a
Through all the years of American history only two presidents have been impeached. The two who were impeached were Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson. Bill Clinton was elected president in November 3, 1992 after serving as Governor of Arkansas. Andrew Johnson was elected president in April 15, 1865 after Lincoln’s assassination. The two impeachments were different in many ways, however Bill Clintons was very unpopular to the public.
One of the problems with the law is its principle of removing judicial discretion. This severely hinders a judge's ability to make a punishment fit the crime. While some felons deserve life in prison, it is unfair to create a standard that would force judges to sentence offenders to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
Since Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty due to infrequencies and the randomness of the imposition of the death penalty. (Mandery, 2012, p.135). The two justices who switched sides between the Furman case and the Gregg case, both expressed mayor concern in Furman with the infrequency and randomness with which juries imposed the death penalty. “For Justice Potter Stewart, the arbitrariness was a matter of fairness. For Justice Byron White, the concern was utilitarian a randomly and infrequently imposed death penalty could not possibly deter” (Mandery, 2012, p.135), they both expressed similar concerns about the apparent arbitrariness with which death sentences were imposed under the existing law, each found the unpredictability of the original statute fatal, it seems only fair to ask whether the revised Georgia statute has created greater rationality. (Mandery, 2012, p.135) The Supreme Court realized that the process in which defendants were being persecuted was not based a fairness practices; it was administrated in a different way by different judges, juries, prosecutors, etc. The Supreme Court found only how the death penalty was applied was cruel and unusual; it was too uneven and inconsistent. As a result of the 1972 Furman decision, hundreds of inmates on death row had their sentences commuted to life, and a significant number of those inmates have now been
Most powers in our government do not go unchecked; the power of the presidential pardon is an exception to this rule. It is explicit in the constitution that this power was meant to be held solely by the president for the purpose of forcing him to use it sparingly and fairly. Nonetheless our government has evolved a system through which presidential pardons usually follow. The system was developed so as to insure that pardons were not used for personal or political gain. All clemency candidates are screened first by the department of justice and then a committee formed by the president before a full report, with recommendations for action, is presented to the president himself. Normally the department of justice does not consider an applicant eligible for a presidential pardon until five years after his or her sentence has been completed or after the conviction if no sentence is given. Also, according the normal regulations, pardons aren’t granted to people who are under probation or parole. Due to the wording in the constitu...
The times have changed for the Executive Branch. In the past, the president simply acted as the Constitution's errand boy. He could only follow it, and had no freedom to actually do anything but follow it. Thus, the president’s role was not efficient. As time passed, this restraint grew weaker and weaker. People decided that the president’s responsibility is to represent and serve the people.The enumerated powers would hold the president back from representing the people’s wishes. With the use of vested powers, presidents gained the ability to fix many problems not relating to some of the Constitution’s laws. As this transition occured, modern presidency appeared. For the president now acts as the main figure of the government, and bears the responsibility of the nation himself.
When Richard Wilbur was ten, a very traumatic thing happened when he lost his dog. This event led him eventually to write the poem “The Pardon,” which is based on that event. He shows us in this poem that death is nothing to be scared of, and we need to learn to forgive ourselves for our prior mistakes.
...he Senate is in recess. That person appointed can fill that position until the end of the following session. Usually, the President and the Senate share the duty and power to high level policy making positions. The President nominates someone and the Senate confirms it. However, the Constitution allows recess appointments as an exception. This exception was made for a continuousness administrative government. The constitution gives the President a little room to flex his muscles on both of these powers; one more than the other. The difference is the President has exclusive authority on the grant of pardon. No hearing is held and it cannot be appealed. On recess appointments, the President is only given limited power to appoint a person to a position by how long that person can serve without the approval of the Senate.
Freedom is the ability one has to choose. Freedom is without consequence, fear of transgression, and lacks regret. Freedom is a fork in the road—a trail that leads to fortune in a field of traps. Humans have freedom and hold it as children do crayons, straying beyond the lines of purpose only to get lost in meaningless scribbles. Dante condemns these actions in his poem Purgatory. Dante invents a fictitious location in afterlife, liberating souls that have become prisoners of their own disarray. With a collection of paradoxes, vivid imagery, and active examples, Dante establishes a thorough process in which souls can be cleansed of the past and stride to their future. Purgatory is far from a place of punishment; it is rather a place of liberation; individuals can only obtain ultimate freedom if cleansed of their sins.
It is used as a check on the power of the judiciary system. Clemency processes are found to be in major criminal justice systems worldwide. In the United States, executive clemency may take the form of a pardon, commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, or reprieve. A pardon may reduce or set aside a sentence, generally a pardon only restores a person 's reputation or reinstates a citizen 's civil liberties; commutation of a sentence substitutes a milder sentence without relieving the criminal stigma of the crime committed; and a reprieve postpones a scheduled
I do not believe it would have been just for the state to pardon Tucker’s crimes due to the moral injustice she was responsible for. In Jeffrey Reiman’s article “Against the Death Penalty” he analyzes the principle of lex talionis, which states that one who has harmed another should be penalized to the same or equivalent extent, or as the common phrase goes: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Reiman arrives at the conclusion that there is an equality between human beings by examining the implications of lex talionis, which implies one thinks of other’s pain to be as great as his or her own. Additionally, Reiman explores the Kantian belief that an individual permits the universal form of the objective which guides his action. For example, if an individual kills someone, then he or she authorizes the concept that he or she may be killed, and in doing so there is no injustice done. Thus, this belief also endorses the equality of individuals and helps grant credibility towards Reimans claim. By using Kant’s theory as a basis for his argument, Reiman asserts the concept of lex talionis “affirms both the equality and rationality of human beings and for that reason [lex talionis] is just” (Reiman). Therefore, I believe it would be unjust to grant Tucker a pardon for her crimes because doing so would lose the equality between human beings. Tucker deserved a grave punishment for the brutal murder of two people, but Tucker did not deserve to die.
Evolved from English common law, the United States judiciary system is an intricate series of complex judgments, decisions, and procedures. A corner-stone of this systematic practice, is the belief that a crime against an individual is a crime against society at large, therefore must be punished by that same society. The intent of incarceration is to rehabilitate the offender, so that they might return to society and become productive members of it.
A judge has the ability to choose to alter their decision for sentencing based on their respective state’s truth in sentencing program. Depending on the crime and the offender, a judge may decide to mandate the offender to a longer than average sentence. The judge may change the offender’s base sentence. It may be reduced to match a sentence that is similar to a non-truth in sentencing punishment. He or she knows the offender will only serve about eighty-five percent of the sentence before they are eligible for parole or released. By minimizing the sentence, the eighty-five percent served would resemble a sentence that allowed for early release (Chen, 2001, page ii). However, the judge may form a bias of the individual and use this power to order them to a greater amount of time in order to punish the person. An individual who commits a crime, especially a violent crime, would serve almost double the average sentence served (Ditton and Wilson, 1999, pages 7-8). It would also force individuals, who commit less severe crimes to serve longer sentences since they are serving the majority of their sentence. A bias of the offender, which can be based on any extralegal factor, may lead to an injustice sentence and truth in sentencing would not allow them to be released early. There are also innocent people within the criminal justice system that may be falsely convicted.
Many are aware that the President of the United States has the power to veto a bill, however many are not aware that all three executives are authorized the power of the veto a bill that is sent to them from the legislature. All three executives are also given the authority and ability to appoint certain criminal justice personnel, those who they choose have the ability to influence the criminal justice one way or another whether it be in a positive manner or a negative manner.
When you think of an extreme crime you think of murder. When you think of an extreme punishment you think of the death penalty. Crimes of such severity sometimes deserve an equal punishment and we as a society accept this. However, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan argues that society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty. It is true that over the years since the death penalty was first implemented it has undergone some changes but this does not suggest that we believe that the death penalty is unacceptable.