Editor, The Beacon:
Attentive adults understand that the legal authority to do something does not necessarily justify it. Such is the case with pardons.
Our current president is in the company of many others in abusing the constitutionally granted pardon power. Yes, second chances, public admission of guilt, demonstrated remorse and evidence of a changed person all have been a rationale for a presidential pardon.
And yes, sadly and perhaps most importantly, only persons with the ability to get high-level attention to their case can ever receive a pardon. So, in the presence of these facts, how can we sustain a coherent argument for the existence of blind justice in America?
Arguments for imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders wither on the lips of apologists for these daily American tragedies. The oft-stated claim that justice is blind, that all are equal before the law, that this is a nation of laws not men, works only in cinema and comedies. Such claims are simply theatrical illusions for the inattentive, illiterate and poor amongst us.
Few acts illustrate the point better than presidential pardons. To ask whether “a pardon is right” is an effective query. But primarily it is an act of devious and malicious misdirection pretending as a legitimate question.
Ira Gershwin truthfully answered in song: It ain’t necessarily so! When pardons are granted, Lady Justice takes off the blindfold and leaves the room.