Pardon me, but at least one of President Biden's 1,500-odd commutations strikes me as particularly odd (and flat-out wrong): disgraced Dixon, Illinois comptroller Rita Crundwell.
I wonder what effect titles on Substack have on views? I wonder if maybe people just didn't read Pen Pals because the title sounded too sentimental and brought back awkward memories for them, or something? Given that people are generally so interested in Phil? I certainly didn't expect that one to be about Phil. I stubbornly cling to the title that I think will best describe my posts, but I am aware of the possible effect of something that just doesn's sound interesting or accessible, and vice versa.
I think the burden of proof or at least the case should very much be on the government for a pardon or commutation. If the power went away, I don't think we'd missed it, but Emily Bazelon thinks it's important so that one can pardon low-level marijuana users, draft card burners, etc.
One thing I learned in reading Julian Barnes' narrative non-fiction work about George Edalji (Arthur & George) is that there was no process of appeals in England before his case in the early 20th century. The pardon was what was supposed to be used in its place. I do understand our current difference (appeals usually being on legalistic terms, pardons for mercy or nullification), but do we really need both pardons and a process of appeals?
Yeah, good point on headlines and their impact on clicks. I will say that I don't always promote my posts with equal vigor. The "Pen pals" one, I am sure, I didn't do much to amplify it. The more reliable stat is the % open rate and on that count, Pen Pals was about average. Your legal insights are well put, too.
And I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, we are soon in the second administration of a person who has proven that he has no regard for law, for norms, for anyone who doesn't lick his boots. The entire country is terrified of Trump. Trump will do whatever he wants. Look at his cabinet picks. We have to hope that there are enough patriotic republicans willing to say no. As far as Dixon, if I was a resident I would be upset but after a period of time I would come to the same conclusion. She had about 4 years left of house arrest; she wasn't let out of jail. And so far, out of 1500 commutations there's been 2 (that I've heard of ) that are questionable. What's the quote? 100 guilty people should go free rather than an innocent person be punished.
If I was a resident of or involved with the Dixon situation I would be pissed off as well. I'm not, and I don't have a problem with Crundwell's commutation. She's out of jail after spending 8 years in jail, and she wasn't pardoned. Preemptive pardons for people Trump has promised retribution to wouldn't bother me.
I respect we view it differently, Marty. On the preemptive question....the thing that troubles me about it is that it gives more credence to any claims that these folks did something illegal/criminal. They didn't, as far as I can tell. A preemptive pardon/pardons also give more weight and power to Trump's threats, which empowers and emboldens him to take even more anti-democratic (small "d") and bullying behavior. In the newsroom, we used to have a policy: we don't write about threats of lawsuits. If someone files a suit of some kind, then maybe it's a story, but until then, it's just talk. I don't know if that's analogous here, but it comes to mind as I type these thoughts. Going back to Rita Crundwell---you note that you'd be upset if you resided in Dixon. Then, I guess my question is: aren't you upset even though you don't reside there? It's less personally of an impact, but we're in all this big boat together. The mass shooting in Madison today---I know a few of the teachers there. I hate mass shootings anywhere, and I've always been upset by the news of any such mass shooting....it's just that this one today is more personal since I know people involved.
You should pay more attention to Biden and get over your DTS. Biden is a senile old fool. His outrageous commutation of Crundwell just proves it. Totally disgusting.
And as far as peremptory pardons for folks who YOU think did not commit a crime, here are some practical insights. First you have obviously never been caught up in the legal system or you would not have made such a naive pollyannaish statement. You do not, nor does the "innocent defendant" determines if a crime was committed. The prosecutor does! As such if one has a politically motivated prosecutor in a charged political environment - as we do now - , the "non crime" can become a crime. Nothing new here Matt. The Soviets described this strategy perfectly under Stalin: "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." You clearly don't understand that unless you are ultra rich, when the feds come a calling, you are in trouble - innocent or not - since the feds have literally unlimited resources and I doubt Chaney and her peers do. You also don't seem to understand that in the unlikely event that you (or any other "innocent") beats the feds, they - the feds - will have extracted their "pound of flesh" in money, time and emotional distress. Don't be so dismissive of something so serious ... until you've been there.
I don't think he put any thought into because I don't think he's making the decisions. I think people are shoving stuff in front of him to sign and that he doesn't even know, let alone understand what's going on.
I wonder what effect titles on Substack have on views? I wonder if maybe people just didn't read Pen Pals because the title sounded too sentimental and brought back awkward memories for them, or something? Given that people are generally so interested in Phil? I certainly didn't expect that one to be about Phil. I stubbornly cling to the title that I think will best describe my posts, but I am aware of the possible effect of something that just doesn's sound interesting or accessible, and vice versa.
I think the burden of proof or at least the case should very much be on the government for a pardon or commutation. If the power went away, I don't think we'd missed it, but Emily Bazelon thinks it's important so that one can pardon low-level marijuana users, draft card burners, etc.
One thing I learned in reading Julian Barnes' narrative non-fiction work about George Edalji (Arthur & George) is that there was no process of appeals in England before his case in the early 20th century. The pardon was what was supposed to be used in its place. I do understand our current difference (appeals usually being on legalistic terms, pardons for mercy or nullification), but do we really need both pardons and a process of appeals?
Yeah, good point on headlines and their impact on clicks. I will say that I don't always promote my posts with equal vigor. The "Pen pals" one, I am sure, I didn't do much to amplify it. The more reliable stat is the % open rate and on that count, Pen Pals was about average. Your legal insights are well put, too.
And I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, we are soon in the second administration of a person who has proven that he has no regard for law, for norms, for anyone who doesn't lick his boots. The entire country is terrified of Trump. Trump will do whatever he wants. Look at his cabinet picks. We have to hope that there are enough patriotic republicans willing to say no. As far as Dixon, if I was a resident I would be upset but after a period of time I would come to the same conclusion. She had about 4 years left of house arrest; she wasn't let out of jail. And so far, out of 1500 commutations there's been 2 (that I've heard of ) that are questionable. What's the quote? 100 guilty people should go free rather than an innocent person be punished.
If I was a resident of or involved with the Dixon situation I would be pissed off as well. I'm not, and I don't have a problem with Crundwell's commutation. She's out of jail after spending 8 years in jail, and she wasn't pardoned. Preemptive pardons for people Trump has promised retribution to wouldn't bother me.
I respect we view it differently, Marty. On the preemptive question....the thing that troubles me about it is that it gives more credence to any claims that these folks did something illegal/criminal. They didn't, as far as I can tell. A preemptive pardon/pardons also give more weight and power to Trump's threats, which empowers and emboldens him to take even more anti-democratic (small "d") and bullying behavior. In the newsroom, we used to have a policy: we don't write about threats of lawsuits. If someone files a suit of some kind, then maybe it's a story, but until then, it's just talk. I don't know if that's analogous here, but it comes to mind as I type these thoughts. Going back to Rita Crundwell---you note that you'd be upset if you resided in Dixon. Then, I guess my question is: aren't you upset even though you don't reside there? It's less personally of an impact, but we're in all this big boat together. The mass shooting in Madison today---I know a few of the teachers there. I hate mass shootings anywhere, and I've always been upset by the news of any such mass shooting....it's just that this one today is more personal since I know people involved.
You should pay more attention to Biden and get over your DTS. Biden is a senile old fool. His outrageous commutation of Crundwell just proves it. Totally disgusting.
And as far as peremptory pardons for folks who YOU think did not commit a crime, here are some practical insights. First you have obviously never been caught up in the legal system or you would not have made such a naive pollyannaish statement. You do not, nor does the "innocent defendant" determines if a crime was committed. The prosecutor does! As such if one has a politically motivated prosecutor in a charged political environment - as we do now - , the "non crime" can become a crime. Nothing new here Matt. The Soviets described this strategy perfectly under Stalin: "show me the man, I'll show you the crime." You clearly don't understand that unless you are ultra rich, when the feds come a calling, you are in trouble - innocent or not - since the feds have literally unlimited resources and I doubt Chaney and her peers do. You also don't seem to understand that in the unlikely event that you (or any other "innocent") beats the feds, they - the feds - will have extracted their "pound of flesh" in money, time and emotional distress. Don't be so dismissive of something so serious ... until you've been there.
I don't think he put any thought into because I don't think he's making the decisions. I think people are shoving stuff in front of him to sign and that he doesn't even know, let alone understand what's going on.