The governor of Kentucky recently granted some questionable scandalous pardons. I haven't thought or studied much on the general subject of executive clemency. But it seems like the spirit of that power could be upheld while introducing some moderate checks-and-balances, to avoid misuse of power and outright corruption.
The most basic idea is that some modest, minority support in the legislature would be required to sustain the pardon, where a pardon is challenged. If there is no challenge to a pardon, it is effected.
So imagine for instance that a legislator challenges the pardon for child rapist Micah Schoettle. That would be put to a vote, and at least 20% of Kentucky representatives would have to affirm the pardon.
So the barrier of affirmation is still very low, low enough that party-line votes wouldn't be sufficient to overturn the executive clemency decision. But high enough that a meaningful number of legislators would have to be willing to go on record as sustaining a given pardon. (There is no science behind my opening bid of 20%, it just seems like a reasonable number to accomplish those objectives).
The most basic idea is that some modest, minority support in the legislature would be required to sustain the pardon, where a pardon is challenged. If there is no challenge to a pardon, it is effected.
So imagine for instance that a legislator challenges the pardon for child rapist Micah Schoettle. That would be put to a vote, and at least 20% of Kentucky representatives would have to affirm the pardon.
So the barrier of affirmation is still very low, low enough that party-line votes wouldn't be sufficient to overturn the executive clemency decision. But high enough that a meaningful number of legislators would have to be willing to go on record as sustaining a given pardon. (There is no science behind my opening bid of 20%, it just seems like a reasonable number to accomplish those objectives).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment