Off-Topic Area > News Discussion

Manhunt for "Pardoned" criminals.

<< < (2/3) > >>

fortook:
I didn't hear about that.  Its possible, I guess.  The news made is seem like they were pardoned and released.  People seemed more angry about the pardoned's ability to have a future (meaning no criminal record) rather than anything else. The gov did what he did as gov.  I'm not sure they can do that.  If so, what's the point of having a gov at all.  Freezing a legal pardon would trouble me though.  You can't just ignore the law because you don't like what happens.  Even though, of course history tells us you can.

LincolnLover:
I agree, it sounds almost too crazy to be true, but I looked into it to make sure I didn't mishear on the news and found this (and other) news links on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/mississippi-judge-blocks-release-21-inmates-given-pardons-by-governor-barbour/


 A Mississippi judge is blocking the release of 21 inmates given pardons by former Gov. Haley Barbour, supporting the state attorney general's contention that Barbour's actions weren't in compliance with the state's constitutional requirements.

Circuit Judge Tomie Green issued an injunction late Wednesday at the request of Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood after Hood argued that the inmates given get-out-of-jail free cards didn't give sufficient public notice that they were seeking to have their records cleared.





--- Quote from: fortook on January 17, 2012, 11:12:50 AM ---I didn't hear about that.  Its possible, I guess.  The news made is seem like they were pardoned and released.  People seemed more angry about the pardoned's ability to have a future (meaning no criminal record) rather than anything else. The gov did what he did as gov.  I'm not sure they can do that.  If so, what's the point of having a gov at all.  Freezing a legal pardon would trouble me though.  You can't just ignore the law because you don't like what happens.  Even though, of course history tells us you can.

--- End quote ---

fortook:
Hood is using an old school requirement, the publication requirement (some areas don't even have newspapers anymore), to circumvent the pardons.  Looks pretty weak to me.  I just hope the public won't stand for the old- "using the letter of the law to undermine the spirit of the law".  We'll see.

Not saying I agree with what the Gov did, I don't know the details, just that it was his prerogative.  Its common for Executives to sign a bunch of pardons before they leave office, but 200?

winchester buttre:
Pardoning should be the end of it.  President Clinton pardoned and got chastised for it.  Bush pardoned and took the heat for scooter Libbey.  Ford was the one who took the most scrutiny; it cost him another term.

LincolnLover:
I understand the theory of trying to present a case to reverse a Pardon (in theory) it just bugs me that they have to stay in jail while waiting to see if the state (which should be the one carrying the burden of proof to overturn) will reverse it or not. In a Parole hearing sure, but I see it as a violation of Due Process. I guess it just shows truth to the old laymen saying "possession is 9/10 of the law" If they possess your ass still, they still can act like they own it, untill they chose not to. Easier to justify a "not released" then a "brought back in". Easier for the TV news viewing audience to digest I guess. To me baloney is baloney whatever the flavor, but when politicians(oops I meant judges and attorney generals) who are elected or appointed by those elected want to stay in public favor........well, don't you know that court cases should be held on American Idol commercials for vote ins between the parts of our society that really matter?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version