This is terrible weighing of the costs and benefits of the pardon power. I think Senator Murphy woefully undervalues its utility. /1

In part because the Congress of which he is a part has established no functioning second-look mechanisms for shortening sentences or expunging convictions, commutations and pardons are the only mechanisms for correcting injustices in the federal system. /2
And it's not as if those injustices are rare. Go to any federal correctional facility, and take time to learn who is there and about their cases, and you find literally thousands of people whose sentences were grossly excessive given their offenses. /3
Those people need commutations as a corrective because there is no parole or other second look in place to address that. Some have tried to use compassionate release under the First Step Act, but DOJ tries to block those efforts at every turn and it's a limited option. /4
Presidential commutations are thus the only avenue for these folks. And under President Obama, more than 1,700 regular people (not his cronies) received relief. It was woefully inadequate for the need, but it shows the value of the power. /5
Pardons are essential as well because the collateral consequences of convictions can be devastating for people trying to get housing, employment, and education after being convicted. There is no other way to clear a federal conviction than a pardon. /6
So before Senator Murphy immediately argues for stripping the one tool in place to address all this -- and all because we have someone with no moral compass exercising the power -- he should first set out to enact needed substitutes for what the power is doing. /7
Congress lacks the power to remove the pardon power from the Constitution, so his tweet is empty symbolism. (Though it is dangerous because it will make people think the pardon power is the problem instead of the person currently exercising it.) /8
But he could be pushing for real change through legislation -- second looks of sentencing, expungement options, removing collateral consequences of convictions, eliminating the mandatory minimums that cause so many of the excessive sentences in the first place. /9
As a legislator, that should be his focus. Not this ill-advised tweet that gets the balance of interests wrong precisely because he's not remotely well versed in the utility of the pardon power. If he was, he would never have concluded it's worth getting rid of. /10
Even if Congress had mechanisms in place that served similar functions as the pardon power, inevitably they would be flawed and there would still be instances of injustices that need correction. Thankfully the framers of the Constitution recognized that. /11
That's why the power has such a place of prominence -- right alongside the commander in chief powers. /12
We wouldn't say the president should no longer have those powers simply because a particular president did a terrible job using those powers, and we shouldn't gut the pardon power because the current officeholder is corrupt and has twisted values. /13
The solution to what's happening now is to get a better leader, which we've done. And my hope is that leader will see that the pardon power's utility is critical, and he'll show everyone what a real leader does when wielding it. /end

More from Crime

You May Also Like

Oh my Goodness!!!

I might have a panic attack due to excitement!!

Read this thread to the end...I just had an epiphany and my mind is blown. Actually, more than blown. More like OBLITERATED! This is the thing! This is the thing that will blow the entire thing out of the water!


Has this man been concealing his true identity?

Is this man a supposed 'dead' Seal Team Six soldier?

Witness protection to be kept safe until the right moment when all will be revealed?!

Who ELSE is alive that may have faked their death/gone into witness protection?


Were "golden tickets" inside the envelopes??


Are these "golden tickets" going to lead to their ultimate undoing?

Review crumbs on the board re: 'gold'.


#SEALTeam6 Trump re-tweeted this.
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.