A man must fortify himself and understand that a wise man who yields to laziness or anger or passion or love of drink, or who commits any other action prompted by impulse and inopportune, will probably find his fault condoned; but if he stoops to greed, he will not be pardoned, but render himself odious as a combination of all vices at once.
Originally, in fact, the power to pardon was used precisely for economic and political ends. Legal historians have noted that in England, kings used pardons for their own ends. For instance, criminals could be pardoned if they agreed to labor for the American colonies or the Crown's navy.
In the end, granting mercy comes down to just two people. For the recipient, the pardon is freedom. For the politician, the pardon can mean - not surprisingly - political gain.
I regret and suffer those losses, but it's God's will. He will pardon me if I committed excesses, but I don't think I did.
The issue of prohibiting pardons shouldn't be a political one, but a legal and moral one that relates to the details of the specific case before the court.
Of all presidential perks, the pardon power has a special significance. It is just the kind of authority that would attract the special attention of someone obsessed with himself and his own ability to influence events.
Phones rang constantly, as if the White House was conducting some kind of pardon telethon.
He decided to plunge on with pardons over the department's objections, or where he knew that there would be objections if he had let career prosecutors know what he was doing.
Asking for a royally appointed prime minister is undemocratic. It is, pardon me, a mess. It is irrational.
To show men that crimes can be pardoned, and that punishment is not their inevitable consequence, encourages the illusion of impunity and induces the belief that, since there are pardons, those sentences which are not pardoned are violent acts of force rather than the products of justice.
