And especially because (as pointed out by several TV legal analysts), this commutation was done without consulting the Justice Department. Clinton's pardons at least followed the proper procedures, and post-Clinton, those procedures were made more stringent.
Best anyone can tell, the proper procedures for consultation were not followed this time. Another executive fiat by Dick and the The Dictator, without regard for the rules.
I certainly understand this feeling. But, the judge handed down the sentence, not a jury. And part of the reasoning is that juries often are swayed by emotion, and don't necessarily understand or follow well the legal nuances and guidelines. Which is why the jury makes recommendations for sentencing to the judge - but supposedly the judge makes a reasonable with respect to the law sentence taking into account the jury's recommendations.
I'd agree - but it's not a pardon - merely a changing of the sentence in the Libby case. Heads of state all over have rights to pardon criminals and commute sentences. Governors do it, heck - I bet in some cases of local laws that local officials can do so.
ellice
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:23:23 GMT, ellice wrote: X-No-Archive Yes
Nobody here has the right to commute sentences in such a manner. Our system is different it's true, based on the English system and our Provincial one based on the Scottish for a large part but I don't believe sentences get altered. Personally, I think it is even more important that well known figures serve the time they are given, not doing so sets them above the law and serves as a poor example.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required