Obama grants clemency to 231

[Lamb]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/obama-clemency/

What do you think about President Obama granting pardons before he exits his Presidency? In one day he pardoned 231 criminals.

For me, I'm bothered by it. These are criminals that went before a court and a judge and received a sentence. It's like our justice system doesn't matter to the President and is more like an action to bring popularity to himself.

 

[MoreCoffee]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/obama-clemency/

What do you think about President Obama granting pardons before he exits his Presidency? In one day he pardoned 231 criminals.

For me, I'm bothered by it. These are criminals that went before a court and a judge and received a sentence. It's like our justice system doesn't matter to the President and is more like an action to bring popularity to himself.

I can't help but think that the President selects the pardons on the advice of Judges and the Justice department anyway so it is not as if he pardons people who do not have a case for pardon. Not every court and not every judge presiding in a court does justice for every case brought before them. This measure is a means of redressing possible injustices or excessive sentences without going through all the cost and complexity of appeals courts or the supreme court. It also offers the possibility of giving justice to people who had inadequate defence attorneys.

 

[psalms 91]

I can't help but think that the President selects the pardons on the advice of Judges and the Justice department anyway so it is not as if he pardons people who do not have a case for pardon. Not every court and not every judge presiding in a court does justice for every case brought before them. This measure is a means of redressing possible injustices or excessive sentences without going through all the cost and complexity of appeals courts or the supreme court. It also offers the possibility of giving justice to people who had inadequate defence attorneys.

I think it is a good thing, mercy is never deserved butis great when given

 

[Rens]

Oh non violent drug crimes. That's great. Obama rocks.

 

[Josiah]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/obama-clemency/

What do you think about President Obama granting pardons before he exits his Presidency? In one day he pardoned 231 criminals.

For me, I'm bothered by it. These are criminals that went before a court and a judge and received a sentence. It's like our justice system doesn't matter to the President and is more like an action to bring popularity to himself.

Lately, presidents have been doing this in the last days of their presidency... often in large blocks in order to avoid too much attention to any one.

I too don't like this. Presidents and governors in the USA have this ability, but it's SUPPOSE to be a very, very rare thing when obviously an injustice was done and/or when the real issue was politics and not criminality - this ability is part of the "checks and balances" that is so key to how the government of the USA was set up. I think it's at times abused. And it has nothing to do with political parties, executives of both parties do this.

 

[Stravinsk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/obama-clemency/

What do you think about President Obama granting pardons before he exits his Presidency? In one day he pardoned 231 criminals.

For me, I'm bothered by it. These are criminals that went before a court and a judge and received a sentence. It's like our justice system doesn't matter to the President and is more like an action to bring popularity to himself.

Generally, I'm not a fan of Presidential pardons, nor of Executive orders that bypass the legal process - it makes the office of the President (Prime Minister if one is in Australia) closer to that of a king and upsets the balance of power. I also agree that it may be (although it's hard to know for certain just on the action) a move to gain popularity.

That being said - I don't believe the persons in question (non violent drug offenders) are criminals by any stretch of natural law, nor was it justice to put them in jail in the first place. Setting them free is, in fact, justice.

 

[tango]

I can't help but think that the President selects the pardons on the advice of Judges and the Justice department anyway so it is not as if he pardons people who do not have a case for pardon. Not every court and not every judge presiding in a court does justice for every case brought before them. This measure is a means of redressing possible injustices or excessive sentences without going through all the cost and complexity of appeals courts or the supreme court. It also offers the possibility of giving justice to people who had inadequate defence attorneys.

If it looked like a miscarriage of justice it might make more sense to review the case rather than merely overrule the justice system. Otherwise it can so easily look as if the system is being abused (and, to be clear, this applies to all presidents and not just Mr Obama).

 

[Rens]

If it looked like a miscarriage of justice it might make more sense to review the case rather than merely overrule the justice system. Otherwise it can so easily look as if the system is being abused (and, to be clear, this applies to all presidents and not just Mr Obama).

But then he'd have to change the laws. If it is a crime by law he can't all of a sudden change that. Guess he also made a statement. I bet it wouldn't even be a crime here. Don't know what they did, but if they had to go to prison for having illegal drugs he's simply saying with this that he doesn't think it's a crime or if they stole something it's like: they need help.

 

[Stravinsk]

But then he'd have to change the laws. If it is a crime by law he can't all of a sudden change that. Guess he also made a statement. I bet it wouldn't even be a crime here. Don't know what they did, but if they had to go to prison for having illegal drugs he's simply saying with this that he doesn't think it's a crime or if they stole something it's like: they need help.

Let's not confuse the issue by tying it to real immoral behavior, which is what stealing is. This is one issue I've long had with Pauline Christianity - because of certain things Saul/Paul wrote - it equates all laws and so called authority that make and back those laws equivalent with moral law - and this is nonsense. Take it to the logical conclusion and all governments must be legitimate, and any laws they set up, simply because they have authority at one time. The so called Divine right of Kings makes nothing a crime so long as it is decreed by the so called authority.

The laws regarding certain substances (like Cannabis) have, to some extent, by the will of the people, been changed in various parts of the USA and the world. We are recognizing that they were immoral laws to begin with. It therefore follows that it is also moral to free those individuals who have done no harm to their neighbors but are only imprisoned because they disobeyed an immoral law.

 

[Rens]

Let's not confuse the issue by tying it to real immoral behavior, which is what stealing is. This is one issue I've long had with Pauline Christianity - because of certain things Saul/Paul wrote - it equates all laws and so called authority that make and back those laws equivalent with moral law - and this is nonsense. Take it to the logical conclusion and all governments must be legitimate, and any laws they set up, simply because they have authority at one time. The so called Divine right of Kings makes nothing a crime so long as it is decreed by the so called authority.

The laws regarding certain substances (like Cannabis) have, to some extent, by the will of the people, been changed in various parts of the USA and the world. We are recognizing that they were immoral laws to begin with. It therefore follows that it is also moral to free those individuals who have done no harm to their neighbors but are only imprisoned because they disobeyed an immoral law.

I don't know what they did. Even if they stole stuff in Holland they're more like: awww. Heroin addicts: awww, they don't get prison, but methadon. And Obama is socialist too. Nothing to do with Paul, more with humanism or something. Even if they rape kids here they get like one year in a luxurous 1 or 2 person cell with nice things to do and good food. I think the whole prison system in America is insane, but here it's also insane and the other extreme. One guy got seduced and killed by a woman. She had done the exact same thing to another man, but only got one year prison here, so she could start all over again. Insane.
To put someone in prison for having marijuana is insane too and hypocrit, because people can drink all they want to or use prescription drugs all they want to without it having any consequences.
A lot of those laws are weird. If you don't wear a helmet on your moped 80 euro, not tied up in the car, even more, but go climb the mount Everest or do other dangerous stuff and noone cares.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't know what they did. Even if they stole stuff in Holland they're more like: awww. Heroin addicts: awww, they don't get prison, but methadon. And Obama is socialist too. Nothing to do with Paul, more with humanism or something. Even if they rape kids here they get like one year in a luxurous 1 or 2 person cell with nice things to do and good food. I think the whole prison system in America is insane, but here it's also insane and the other extreme. One guy got seduced and killed by a woman. She had done the exact same thing to another man, but only got one year prison here, so she could start all over again. Insane.
To put someone in prison for having marijuana is insane too and hypocrit, because people can drink all they want to or use prescription drugs all they want to without it having any consequences.
A lot of those laws are weird. If you don't wear a helmet on your moped 80 euro, not tied up in the car, even more, but go climb the mount Everest or do other dangerous stuff and noone cares.

With regard to Saul/Paul - the writings I refer to is Romans 13: 1-7 - and not because I dislike this or that law (obviously there are laws I dislike) but the passage doesn't make logical sense. A person reading this passage who lived in Mao's China that killed millions of people or Stalin's Russia who likewise killed millions would have to believe (if they believed the passage) that these were leaders set up by God. Take any ruthless murderer you like, but a strict reading of the passage means they are all appointed by God, even if they fight each other, murder their citizens, etc. Christians tend to emphasize the "doing good" part - but dismiss that Saul/Paul clearly says that all authority is God instituted. This is something I reject. It's not the only reason I reject Saul/Paul, but it is an important one.

If you think about it, the American Revolutionaries were directly disobeying God by fighting the British if Saul/Paul's words are true - because if they are, then they were resisting God's "appointed Authority".

Regarding substances:

The laws in place against herbs aren't there for moral reasons. They are there to protect monopolies including the pharmaceutical cartels (as well as other interests). If one is to believe they are morally wrong - one has to ask why (some of them at least, like Cannabis) heal various diseases and ease suffering and why God would dare to put them here in the first place then create "Authorities" to outlaw them.

 

[tango]

But then he'd have to change the laws. If it is a crime by law he can't all of a sudden change that. Guess he also made a statement. I bet it wouldn't even be a crime here. Don't know what they did, but if they had to go to prison for having illegal drugs he's simply saying with this that he doesn't think it's a crime or if they stole something it's like: they need help.

Not necessarily change the law. If someone was convicted because they lacked the resources to prove they were innocent no change in the law is required, merely a review of the evidence. If a key witness lied under oath but it couldn't be proven at the time no change in the law is required.

If someone has been tried by due process, found guilty and punished only for the president to tear up the conviction and set them free it suggests the law is little more than a plaything for the powerful. If something is a crime then people who do it need to be punished; if people doing it don't deserve punishment the action shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Given how much discussion goes on about non-violent drug offenders (the kind of person who is caught with drugs for personal use but doesn't hurt anybody) I'm amazed there isn't a stronger push to decriminalise or legalise that sort of behavior. Although it would make little logical sense to permit drugs for personal use but not for supply to others (in the sense that something is either legal or illegal) it would mean that the little guys smoking a bit of weed at the weekend wouldn't be harassed by the police while the Mr Bigs of the drug world would still be the subject of police attention.

 

[tango]

With regard to Saul/Paul - the writings I refer to is Romans 13: 1-7 - and not because I dislike this or that law (obviously there are laws I dislike) but the passage doesn't make logical sense. A person reading this passage who lived in Mao's China that killed millions of people or Stalin's Russia who likewise killed millions would have to believe (if they believed the passage) that these were leaders set up by God. Take any ruthless murderer you like, but a strict reading of the passage means they are all appointed by God, even if they fight each other, murder their citizens, etc. Christians tend to emphasize the "doing good" part - but dismiss that Saul/Paul clearly says that all authority is God instituted. This is something I reject. It's not the only reason I reject Saul/Paul, but it is an important one.

That passage doesn't sit very nicely if you're living under a ruthless dictator like Hitler or Stalin but it's not as if the Roman empire was all sunshine and roses. It's not like Paul was a Christian living in modern western culture who could sit in the comfort of his recliner and fill his belly with luxury foods while writing to Christians in the Middle East telling them not to resist the Islamic government.

The laws in place against herbs aren't there for moral reasons. They are there to protect monopolies including the pharmaceutical cartels (as well as other interests). If one is to believe they are morally wrong - one has to ask why (some of them at least, like Cannabis) heal various diseases and ease suffering and why God would dare to put them here in the first place then create "Authorities" to outlaw them.

[/QUOTE]

I believe some of them were put into place to make sure men of fighting age were fit to fight during major wars. Now there's little reason to outlaw them other than to preserve power structures - seeing how many people die because of bad batches of drugs (with no comeback), dealers have a clear financial incentive to cut the drugs with whatever is on hand (based on the fact it increases profits significantly with little to no comeback, because their customers can't exactly call Trading Standards or the BBB to complain) and the like, one has to wonder what this War On Drugs is supposed to accomplish.

 

[Stravinsk]

That passage doesn't sit very nicely if you're living under a ruthless dictator like Hitler or Stalin but it's not as if the Roman empire was all sunshine and roses. It's not like Paul was a Christian living in modern western culture who could sit in the comfort of his recliner and fill his belly with luxury foods while writing to Christians in the Middle East telling them not to resist the Islamic government.

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the context of Saul/Paul's circumstances limit the scope of the passage? Because if it is, that would be a bible side note - the text clearly states that all human authority comes from God, that we are to pay our share of taxes, and that man made laws equate to morality. So God apparently approves of mass murder and sets up vastly different authorities with different laws for different lands. The passage doesn't state "obey the authorities insofar as they enforce what is right" - no it says that ALL human authority over other humans comes from God. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Governments come and go, laws change, and horrible things are done in the name of the State. Believing Saul/Paul here means believing that God is the ultimate flip flopping maniacal bully doling out "favor" and "divine approval" to whichever mad genocidal dictator is up next. On a smaller scale it means that he apparently approves of punishing certain (what we would consider to be minor) actions in some countries (like chewing gum in Singapore) but thinks it's just fine everywhere else.

I believe some of them were put into place to make sure men of fighting age were fit to fight during major wars. Now there's little reason to outlaw them other than to preserve power structures - seeing how many people die because of bad batches of drugs (with no comeback), dealers have a clear financial incentive to cut the drugs with whatever is on hand (based on the fact it increases profits significantly with little to no comeback, because their customers can't exactly call Trading Standards or the BBB to complain) and the like, one has to wonder what this War On Drugs is supposed to accomplish.

I'm not sure "fit" is the right word when it comes to certain substances - probably "better motivated" to fight would suit better.

Dealers who operate in the black market nevertheless have to operate in a market where bad publicity, or word of mouth regarding product can get around. If it's known that JoeDealer cuts his Cannabis with oregano, for example (or something that is actually harmful) - then word will spread, and JoeDealer is going to lose business to someone else. You can't call a State trading enforcement agency - but you can take your business elsewhere and tell others of your experience. In my experience as a substance user (I used lots of illegals in the past, but only Cannabis now) - I only remember getting one bad batch of drugs over numerous years.

The War on Drugs is or was a "War on Drugs We Can't Monopolize and Gain Tax Benefit From" - this is why the State has no problem with pharmaceutical equivalents of plant based medicines.

 

[Brighten04]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/obama-clemency/

What do you think about President Obama granting pardons before he exits his Presidency? In one day he pardoned 231 criminals.

For me, I'm bothered by it. These are criminals that went before a court and a judge and received a sentence. It's like our justice system doesn't matter to the President and is more like an action to bring popularity to himself.

Well, there is a difference in pardon and commutation of sentence. I don't have a problem with Presidential pardons as long as the don't let out serial killers and mass murderers.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Apparently he's still at it, commuting the sentence of one 'Chelsea (Bradley) Manning'. That just disturbs me to no end.

 

[Brighten04]

Apparently he's still at it, commuting the sentence of one 'Chelsea (Bradley) Manning'. That just disturbs me to no end.

.

Manning is sick mentally. He should not be allowed out imho. He is a man who is turning into a woman, has attempted suicide, has been on a couple of hunger strikes. A person that mentally disturbed is a danger to himself and others

 

[MoreCoffee]

Apparently he's still at it, commuting the sentence of one 'Chelsea (Bradley) Manning'. That just disturbs me to no end.

Why?

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

Manning is sick mentally. He should not be allowed out imho. He is a man who is turning into a woman, has attempted suicide, has been on a couple of hunger strikes. A person that mentally disturbed is a danger to himself and others

Is prison the right place for somebody who is not sane?

 

[Brighten04]

Is prison the right place for somebody who is not sane?

I don't know. He has not been diagnosed as insane. I would rather he be locked up than on the streets where he can injure other people.