Sarkozy refuses to grant July 14 Amnesty
 

See http://tinyurl.com/2h72xu

Doesn't sound like such a smart idea to me.

((I))

A smarter idea could be not to have prison sentences in the first place for lesser crimes, but institute more house arrest, etc.

He might as well emphasize that the prison overcrowding problem originates with the original crime legislation, not at his end.

A fixed date in the year also doesn't sound like the fairest way of administering pardons, since admissions to the system don't occur on a fixed date.

He seemed to think that amnesty was a recent deviant development and that's the main reason that he got rid of it. However today's paper traced the tradition back to Grecian times, as well as the coronation of each king.

Oh, Sue, that's now how the pardons worked. It was more in the order of '10 days off each sentence' for crimes not on the blacklist, with a few multipliers of the number of days for various reasons such as percentage of sentence already served.

Did he cancel outstanding fines?

Sue - Bravo!! ((*))

There's another pardon-related issue hanging around in the offing: this might be meant as a signal of future intent, as well...

First public jogging, and now this cruel abuse of criminal rights!

Fines were not cancelled this year -- that is a measure that I support 100%. Before previous elections, some people just ignored all driving and parking rules for at least two months before election day, 'knowing' that fines would be cancelled. This time they were wrong.

kerouac wrote: "Fines were not cancelled this year..."

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the information.

It's good to see one President who doesn't pardon criminals

There's a headline in Sunday Ny Times,
Who Will Pardon Bush.

I won't :)

William Jefferson Clinton: 340 pardons
(and that's just from the 1st dynasty)

How many were of "friends"?

Well, let's see. There's Marc Rich, and then there's....

Gee, we remember bill clinton and his pardons...criminals, friends and those who donated $$$$$.

Clinton also pardoned his brother Rogder and Susan MacDougal who refused to testify in a case. He also gave pardons to people who gave Hillary's brother $500,000 to lobby for pardons. He gave one to another person, drug dealer whose name I can't remember, when the main argument in favor of a pardon was the dealer's father gave over a hundred grand to the Dem party.

Mark Rich got a pardon when he gave furniture for Clinton's new house and gave $400,000 to Clinton's library.

The FALN terrorist pardons for murder were even worse.

I think that answers alanrow's question as to how many were for "friends."

So you are all saying 2 wrongs, make a rght?

Thank you for filling me in on some of the details, kerouac, that does seem to make more sense. Though it still doesn't explain the need for a fixed date for the announcement, which gives at least the appearance of a collective pardon. Given that both offender and society are better served if the former is treated as an individual, I can't see the advantage.

Also still unanswered is the question: why is it so desirable to have so much judicial power concentrated in the hands of a single, top executive? Good grief, I thought the events of the original Bastille Day were supposed to get rid of all that, not perpetuate it! As for the common people - those who played the major role on that long-ago day - they are now the ones accountable for putting into office those who write the criminal code. Those legislators in turn are responsible for giving due consideration to the cost of the administration of the laws they pass. If the costs exceed the perceived benefits to society, then they should stop passing the buck, or should it be the euro, to the president and change the stupid code!

Jody,

I am not saying two wrongs make a right. As a specialist in criminal law, I can say that it is very hard to say when the executive's granting of pardon or clemency is an abuse of discretion. (Absent a cash bribe, it would never be a crime by itself)

When there are mitigating factors, such as a lack of prior criminality, a low (or no) level of violence - always absent in my cases, or a minor role in the over all offense(e.g., Libby was not accused of the main crime, the leak, but rather of not cooperating in the investigation, a far less serious crime than the one that prompted it.)

However, when your wife and brother-in-law get money, and you get furniture, the line becomes much clearer and the pardon more eggregious.