this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
13 points (100.0% liked)
USpolitics
715 readers
18 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would abolish presidential pardons altogether. They're an insult to the rule of law.
Laws aren't always applied fairly, nor are they necessarily morally right.
For example, Alan Turing was convicted and sentenced to chemical castration for being a gay man when it was illegal to be one in the UK. Under a strict adherence to the "rule of law" this was the correct decision, but obviously the UK government was morally wrong for treating him that way.
That is a fair point. I suppose it is a weak argument to say that the government should do something else well instead, because it currently doesn't. But more broadly government shouldn't be placing serious penalties on anything that doesn't have definite harm that has occurred on a definite victim.
Fining you for speeding sure. But castration or even jail longer than six months, I'm going to need to see an actual victim with a substantive harm where but for the accused's specific actions they would have not been harmed (proximate cause).
But people think with emotions and can be told to dislike this or that person (sometimes fairly but often unfairly) and then people will support any level of penalty suggested thereafter.
More amendments we need. It should be easier to pass amendments that restrict government where the majority agree, strong majority to grow powers. Yet another amendment we need.