However, there are some distinctions in different countries. The main point is that the president of any country must know everything, hear everybody and do the best for the country. Presidential candidates present their speeches during their campaign as self-confident individuals who will bring changes for the better in their country. Nevertheless, no one can predict the future and be sure that this person is honest, that they will act for the sake of the country, and that they will not abuse their power. People hope to see a brave and courageous person as their president, a person who is ready to fight for the people and the status of their country. Unfortunately, some people come to power to pursue their own interests. Among presidential powers of the US presidents, one should mention the right of pardoning that causes heated discussions still some cases of the application of this right are ambiguous, which requires an analysis of the past and present of this power https://buycollegepapers.org/

Throughout American history, its presidents used their pardoning power many times. The first example is President Bill Clinton. At the end of his term in January 2001, he pardoned Marc Rich, one of financial supporter of his campaigns. This wealthy hedge-fund manager had used racketeering as well as swindling to avoid paying taxes, for which he had to face federal charges. This pardon received significant criticism at the time. President Donald Trump was also criticized after his first pardon. He utilized his presidential power to pardon Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff and campaign supporter who had made illegal immigration a flashpoint during Trump’s presidential campaign. Still, every American president in the recent history used his power to pardon on a different scale. However, the highest number of pardons belonged to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which could be attributed to the fact that he had served for four terms in the White House. In this case, such a high number of pardons would be understandable.

At the same time, one should not confuse presidential pardon and commutation, which is a mistake that many people make, thinking that notions are the same. Specifically, when one is pardoned, their conviction is erased, while their civil rights are fully restored. Commutation, on the other hand, actually reduces or even stops the penalty while also making prison sentence shorter and freeing those who have been convicted from jail. Ether every president has had his own way of pardoning, and Barak Obama is not an exception. His use of pardon power was remarkably rare as compared to other presidents. However, Obama made pardons, commutations, and remissions so many times without any ground that his term could not be compared with any other president’s cadence since Harry S. Truman. During his presidency, Obama helped 1,937 prisoners with his power of pardon.

One of the most fascinating cases of pardoning was that of Joe Arpaio. Having pardoned Arpaio, Trump acted in the way of true principals of pure and honest pardoning. Arpaio, who was considered the ‘toughest sheriff’ in the USA, often used his privileges during his long term in the office. Mostly, Arpaio commanded his police officers to arrest people solely based on fact of being an illegal immigrant, even in cases where the suspects were under the jurisdiction of other states. The sheriff’s actions led to the police terrorizing minorities in the state. In 2011, a federal district court judge ordered Arpaio to stop this practice since this was a rude abuse of constitutional rights. This order has no effect Arpaio who continued to act the same, thus placing himself above the federal judiciary and the rule of law. Such a person could barely live in modern society with his values. Recently, Arpaio faced a maximum of six months in jail, but nothing matters now because of the presidential pardon. It is not too difficult to understand why Trump has pardoned Arpaio. Both men are quite similar in their actions – making illegal immigrants responsible for all troubles in the country, disregarding juridical restrictions, and so on. Furthermore, this case is a representation of Trump’s governing style in pure form. Several main points that supported Arpaio’s pardoning were that he had served his country in the Drug Enforcement Administration in the military and as the Arizona’s Maricopa County sheriff. Still, even though 100,000 people had signed the petition against pardoning Arpaio, which would look as the president’s official support of racism, the sheriff was pardoned. Such a messy situation means that only the voice of citizens can change something. Pardoning is an ideal tool for presidents and their dirty politics.

The debate over the presidential power of pardon is extremely topical nowadays since some of the most recent cases of the US presidents utilizing this option are extremely questionable. Historically, the power of pardon was typically used in the cases that allowed the US presidents to deliver their position on the most controversial issues that appeared in American society. Therefore, there were no cases of people, who committed hard crimes, being granted pardon for no reason. Nowadays, it is quite hard to understand whether some cases of presidential pardon can be justified or no. For instance, the former US President Barack Obama shortened the sentences for many people, which did not help those who had already completed their sentences, and they sought relief that could help them in their social life after prison. In the case of the former sheriff Joe Arpaio, Donald Trump’s use of his pardon power was even more controversial. Therefore, the main debate concerning this issue is in how the modern interpretation of this power of presidents fits in the historical model of this presidential option. Obviously, modern cases are less ideological, less transparent, and less publicly backed by the president’s opinion. The cases of the past were used rather as a method of disseminating the president’s point of view regarding some important social issues.

Thus, while American society is based on the principles of democracy and transparency, sometimes, US presidents abuse these principles. For instance, the presidential power to pardon is extremely controversial and it does not allow society to gain a full understanding of the formation of its justice system. The historical cases of pardoning were based on some social contradictions and presidents’ willingness to demonstrate their point of view regarding some existing problems. However, nowadays, this power is used differently, and it is hard to understand whether every case can be somehow justified. The most recent examples demonstrate that the power of pardon may contradict the basic principles of American democracy to a certain extent.