Below is my column in USA Today on the Arpaio pardon and its historical context. While I have been critical of the Arpaio pardon, the history of presidential pardons is quite checkered. Moreover, I agree with critics that the Justice Department made a major mistake in the timing of its prosecution of Arpaio shortly before the election. That does not change the fact that Arpaio was in flagrant violation of a court order and warranted the contempt conviction. I also disagree with New Jersey Christ Christie in aspects of the following statement:
“I think the pardon power is an extraordinary power for any executive, both the governor, and I’ve used it, and the president. My understanding has always been that one of the prerequisites you look for in giving a pardon is contrition for what you were convicted of. I didn’t see that in Sheriff Arpaio. And so, to me, one of the things that you need an acknowledgment of is an acknowledgment of guilt, first off, is required for pardon.”
While Christie can demand that from individuals as governor, it is certainly not a mandatory requirement for a presidential pardon. Contrition is a common element in presidential pardons in the review of petitions but it is not a threshold requirement. While a smaller subset of pardons, some pardon beneficiaries, like Richard Nixon, maintain that they were not guilty of any crime. Indeed, pardons can be used in cases where a president believes that someone was wrongly charged or convicted — as is the case with Trump’s rationale for the Arpaio pardon. Of course, in such case presidents normally give the courts an opportunity to review the conviction on appeal before executing a pardon. This is not one of those cases. Arpaio might have good-faith arguments in favor of his immigration arrests, but those arguments do not give him license to ignore a court order — which he did for 17 months.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Checkered History of Presidential Pardons From “Lupo The Wolf” To “Big George” Caldwell to “Sheriff Joe”” →