this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2025
273 points (99.3% liked)

politics

26819 readers
3218 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

There are good reasons

So says everyone, but WHAT ARE those reasons?

[–] sqw@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

"miscarriages of justice"? but i agree that those should not be arbited by the executive

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If the miscarriages of justice is proven aren't people automatically released. What does a pardon have tondo with anything here?

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

drug crimes, for example… if the US govt decided selling weed is all of a sudden no longer a crime, that doesn’t automatically release people from prison

or if someone did something technically illegal, but the circumstance around it made it clearly the moral choice (perhaps something like whistleblowers)

the world is messy and no law perfectly covers all bases… pardons are the same as prosecutorial or police discretion. in an ideal world, the harshness of the law should be tempered by morality of the individuals at many levels

of course that falls apart when the morality at every level is non existent, but that is legitimate purpose/reason. imo the discussion shouldn’t be about the overall legitimacy of the powers themselves, but in the trade-offs and lack of real protections from abuse, or who gets to have a say in those things

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

I still don't see a good reason you couldn't go through a bill, running in front of congress, for this, as well as the Vietnam draft dodgers mentioned above.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I still don't see a good reason you couldn't go through a bill, running in front of congress, for this, as well as the Vietnam draft dodgers mentioned above.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

because entire laws aren’t meant to handle individual cases. making laws is slow and laborious, and is meant to cover the broad strokes

the real fix is to have a panel or something, similar to how you have judges etc now, and i’m sure there are other solutions

the fact that the currently implementation is rife with abuse - and only pretty recently at that - isn’t a reason the whole thing shouldn’t exist (which is what the thread was about)