Pardon me, Mr. President
by Mohammad Badrul Ahsan
The president of the country in his presidential forbearance pardoned 20 death-row prisoners on the eve of Eid-ul-Fitr. These prisoners were convicted of killing a BNP activist four years ago, and as good as anybody's guess they belonged to rival Awami League.
The intensity of rivalry between these two political parties makes it difficult to separate recrimination from retribution. Awami League claims its workers were falsely implicated out of political motivation. Indeed it seems a bit of overkill that 20 people went to the death row for killing one person.
Then, the law knows best. It is possible that equal involvement made numerous people equally culpable. But if we believe those prisoners were innocent then it leads us to a presumptuous conclusion. It means the family of the victim was more interested to score political points than to find justice for the murdered son.
That being an afterthought, the question is not so much whether the president had the right to grant this pardon. The question is whether he was right to do it. He isn't required to justify his pardon to anyone. Such is the unique power vested in him.
While it doesn't seem surprising that the president would be inclined to save his party men, his wholesale pardon of these prisoners is equally puzzling, as was their wholesale conviction. Presidential pardon is an entitlement more in the line of an expense account. One can spend within the allocated amount so long as the expenses are proper and reasonable. Nobody can question whether the president has the power to pardon, but one can always ask if that power has been exercised after due consideration.
The president of every country in the world enjoys this perk in the tradition of the yesteryear kings. He enjoys the authority of saving a few lives or getting a few people off the hook as a privilege of the highest office in a republic. The presidential power of pardon was included in the American constitution much at the exhortation of Alexander Hamilton who believed a president could use this power at critical moments such as insurrection or rebellion.
Hamilton was proved right when the farmers of Pennsylvania revolted in 1794 against federal taxes levied on their crops. President George Washington used the power to pardon, for the first time in the United States history, the revolting farmers against the young nation. The action worked and the rebellion was quieted.
Thus the original intention for presidential pardon was meant to be as large as the office of the president. That eventually evolved into a political tool so much so that when president Bill Clinton pardoned tax evader Marc Rich, its impropriety almost got him indicted.
However, the presidential pardon has its limitations in the United States, some of which have been defined by the Supreme Court. The impeachment process is excluded from the scope of presidential pardon, which means when an officeholder is impeached the president cannot pardon him. A presidential pardon cannot be issued for a crime that has not been committed. Pardons also don't affect civil cases, or state or local cases.
The real scope of a presidential pardon in the United States is meant to dismiss sentences stemming from affronts to the state through the breaking of law. The Supreme Court has argued that a pardon doesn't have effect on contempt of court charge since, like a civil case, a contempt charge isn't considered an affront to the United States. Instead it is an affront to the court.
That means a president can pardon on behalf of the state such cases which are an affront to it. It raises a vital question when it comes to individuals or autonomous institutions. Can the president deny either of these two categories their right to seek restitution? Can the president do away with a family's right to seek justice?
The answer should be no, however it may have been worded in the constitution. In so much as the president of the country doesn't have the authority to draw money from a citizen's bank account, so he shouldn't be able to forfeit a citizen's right to win justice for the wrong done him by other citizens.
Last November the president granted pardon to a convict. The man was convicted of tax evasion, an affront to the state the president chose to forgive.
The latest pardon sent three pillars reeling under one blow. The president undermined rights of a family, balance of justice and perhaps of his own presidency in one go.
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=154664
The intensity of rivalry between these two political parties makes it difficult to separate recrimination from retribution. Awami League claims its workers were falsely implicated out of political motivation. Indeed it seems a bit of overkill that 20 people went to the death row for killing one person.
Then, the law knows best. It is possible that equal involvement made numerous people equally culpable. But if we believe those prisoners were innocent then it leads us to a presumptuous conclusion. It means the family of the victim was more interested to score political points than to find justice for the murdered son.
That being an afterthought, the question is not so much whether the president had the right to grant this pardon. The question is whether he was right to do it. He isn't required to justify his pardon to anyone. Such is the unique power vested in him.
While it doesn't seem surprising that the president would be inclined to save his party men, his wholesale pardon of these prisoners is equally puzzling, as was their wholesale conviction. Presidential pardon is an entitlement more in the line of an expense account. One can spend within the allocated amount so long as the expenses are proper and reasonable. Nobody can question whether the president has the power to pardon, but one can always ask if that power has been exercised after due consideration.
The president of every country in the world enjoys this perk in the tradition of the yesteryear kings. He enjoys the authority of saving a few lives or getting a few people off the hook as a privilege of the highest office in a republic. The presidential power of pardon was included in the American constitution much at the exhortation of Alexander Hamilton who believed a president could use this power at critical moments such as insurrection or rebellion.
Hamilton was proved right when the farmers of Pennsylvania revolted in 1794 against federal taxes levied on their crops. President George Washington used the power to pardon, for the first time in the United States history, the revolting farmers against the young nation. The action worked and the rebellion was quieted.
Thus the original intention for presidential pardon was meant to be as large as the office of the president. That eventually evolved into a political tool so much so that when president Bill Clinton pardoned tax evader Marc Rich, its impropriety almost got him indicted.
However, the presidential pardon has its limitations in the United States, some of which have been defined by the Supreme Court. The impeachment process is excluded from the scope of presidential pardon, which means when an officeholder is impeached the president cannot pardon him. A presidential pardon cannot be issued for a crime that has not been committed. Pardons also don't affect civil cases, or state or local cases.
The real scope of a presidential pardon in the United States is meant to dismiss sentences stemming from affronts to the state through the breaking of law. The Supreme Court has argued that a pardon doesn't have effect on contempt of court charge since, like a civil case, a contempt charge isn't considered an affront to the United States. Instead it is an affront to the court.
That means a president can pardon on behalf of the state such cases which are an affront to it. It raises a vital question when it comes to individuals or autonomous institutions. Can the president deny either of these two categories their right to seek restitution? Can the president do away with a family's right to seek justice?
The answer should be no, however it may have been worded in the constitution. In so much as the president of the country doesn't have the authority to draw money from a citizen's bank account, so he shouldn't be able to forfeit a citizen's right to win justice for the wrong done him by other citizens.
Last November the president granted pardon to a convict. The man was convicted of tax evasion, an affront to the state the president chose to forgive.
The latest pardon sent three pillars reeling under one blow. The president undermined rights of a family, balance of justice and perhaps of his own presidency in one go.
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=154664
__._,_.___
