Pre-emptive Pardon

[Papewaio]

If someone is pardoned can a law retroactively be applied to them and they be retried for the same crime despite the pardon?

Is is possible to have a pardon be pre-emptively applied to stop a retroactive law being applied to the action?

Are retroactive laws just?

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?

[doc_bean]

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?

Yes, a bad writer is still a writer, a bad musician is still a musician.

[Banquo's Ghost]

In my replies, I'm assuming these are questions of general ethics not tied to any particular national jurisdiction. I am also making the assumption that by pardon we mean an executive level legal instrument declaring public forgiveness of a crime previously proven in a court of law.

If someone is pardoned can a law retroactively be applied to them and they be retried for the same crime despite the pardon?

No, IMO.

Is is possible to have a pardon be pre-emptively applied to stop a retroactive law being applied to the action?

No. As noted, I would expect a pardon to be applied in reference to a previous conviction, not as an absolution for actions that may become crimes.

Are retroactive laws just?

Yes, in certain circumstances. As one who believes in universal human rights, there are some actions that are unequivocally crimes, but may not be included in a particular country's legal code. That country may develop a better and more just legal code, at which time those who may have committed aforesaid crimes should be tried, even if what they did was technically legal at the time.

To be just however, retroactive laws should be used sparingly and against the benchmarks of universal human rights. Just my opinion of course.

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?

I have no knowledge of these "boy bands" of which you young people of today speak, but if you mean the lad Mozart and the Archbishop of Salzburg's employees, I should say yes.

[BigTex]

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?

No, I believe their called vocalists. A musician tends to write music for instruments also.

[Incongruous]

No, I believe their called vocalists. A musician tends to write music for instruments also.

What you sayin? That we vox'rs cannot use the title musician
I shall now leer at you're post most intently sir.

[Slyspy]

If someone is pardoned can a law retroactively be applied to them and they be retried for the same crime despite the pardon?

Is is possible to have a pardon be pre-emptively applied to stop a retroactive law being applied to the action?

Are retroactive laws just?

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?

No.

No.

No.

Not in many cases.

Edit:

Making the same assumptions as BQ when answering.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If someone is pardoned can a law retroactively be applied to them and they be retried for the same crime despite the pardon?

Not in the USA. The languaging of a Presidential pardon is usually constructed so as to prevent this.

Is is possible to have a pardon be pre-emptively applied to stop a retroactive law being applied to the action?

Yes, see above. Presidential pardons have also been proffered under blanket languaging like "...which may have been committed in connection with..."

Are retroactive laws just?

Seldom to never. Expecting someone to have obeyed the law when it was not yet the law places an undue burden. That's "gotcha" legislation, in which case why bother with the legalism.

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?

It is my belief that you are entitled to call yourself whatever you wish. Whether I choose to accord you the same deference is another matter entirely.

That said, N'Sync Rules!!!!!



Excuse me, the neuron responsible for that egregious statement has been dealt with. It had been lurking behind the long-dead "Bee Gees are awesome" neuron and had remained undetected. No further such outbursts are expected.

[Zaknafien]

Hm, maybe our Great Leader will pre-emptively pardon Cheney.. it was awesome the other day when they told him, "Uh, no, you don't have executive privilege, dude" lol

[Hosakawa Tito]

=Papewaio

If someone is pardoned can a law retroactively be applied to them and they be retried for the same crime despite the pardon?

In the US, I believe this would be considered "Double Jeopardy", and would get thrown out of court.

Is is possible to have a pardon be pre-emptively applied to stop a retroactive law being applied to the action?

I agree with BG. There must be a trial and conviction first. Presedential Pardons, ie: Executive Priviledge, trumps all. Used responsibly, no problem, but then we all know that from time to time....

Are retroactive laws just?

In certain common sense situations, yes. Example: Recently, NY State corrected a major flaw in the State Penal Code. Old law - 7 year statute of limitations for the crime of rape. New law - no statute of limitations for rape.
A recent local case, The Bike Path Rapist will never come to trial for rapes committed since the late 1970's due to the unjust and misguided statute of limitations on the books till just recently. If they have DNA evidence that ties him to these crimes, and they do, I believe he should answer for these retroactively.and with extreme prejudice

Are members of boy bands really entitled to call themselves musicians?[/

We don't need no stinkin' lip-sync-hing boy bands.

[KafirChobee]

I have a question.
Can new charges of a crime (or accusation) be presented in a fashion that doesnot interpret the pardon as being a functioning instrument in concern of the reasoning of the pardon?


Or, is a pardon a blank check that covers every catagory of/for an offense?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have a question.
Can new charges of a crime (or accusation) be presented in a fashion that doesnot interpret the pardon as being a functioning instrument in concern of the reasoning of the pardon?


Or, is a pardon a blank check that covers every catagory of/for an offense?

Depends on the text:

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969, through August 9, 1974.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.

This is formatted in such a way that ANY federal crime or misdemeanor was set aside for the entirety of Nixon's presidency (and for the 12 hours immediately before and preceding that presidency if you wish to get picky).

In contrast:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger for all offenses charged or prosecuted by Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh or other member of his office, or committed by these individuals and within the jurisdiction of that office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventeenth.

This is a blanket covering anything connected with that IC investigation, but would not obviate any penalties or charges stemming from other crimes/misdemeanors.


It's all in the wording....

[KafirChobee]

Thx, Seamus for your perspective.

Gah! i wishes me was smarter.