Why not? Because I want my kids to lead lives of virtue and respectability.
What if your kid was in his 50s, and has spent decades showing they’re not going to change and you know the reason they’re such a shit person is you helped them escape consequences their whole lives.
To the point where they literally write an autobiography admitting to a litany of crimes?
Would you continue to shield him of consequences to the point you pardon him for “any and all crimes” over more than a decade?
I think you misread my comment. I described why I would not pardon him.
And I agree with that, because it’s a child you are teaching.
I was asking if you hadn’t ever let you kid face consequences till his 50s, he publicly confessed for crimes you were aware of and didn’t turn him in.
Because at 50 years old… You’re not teaching them a lesson.
So would you continue knowing your son is gonna just keep smoking crack and breaking laws, or would you treat them like any other person and throw them headfirst into the justice system like the crime bill you wrote in 1992 did to tens of millions of actual children for 32 years?
OP’s question was a out whether I would encouragey child to do whatever they want, lneing I could remove any criminal consequences. I would not so encourage them. Grind your axe elsewhere.
Mods keep removing political comments in a post that’s clearly political. But leave the post up. Nice!
Also somewhat amusing that my reply about the US Constitution, our founding political document, remains up. Discussing the Constitution is about as political as you can get.
At any rate, I didn’t realize there was a new rule here. I get it though, election year and all.
Also somewhat amusing that my reply about the US Constitution, our founding political document, remains up.
I removed the comment above yours. I took the approach that where a comment could reasonably be interpreted as a hypothetical question (or response to), and thus not about actual US politics as they are occurring, they were left up. It’s about trying to remove posts and comments that are against the purpose of the community, but also respecting those that are not. Personal judgement is often required and not everyone will agree with every decision. Shades of grey…
Post is borderline political. It’s a line ball.
Removed by mod
but doesn’t protect him from anything he may go on to do
The only limitation on the pardon power is that it must be for things that have already happened. It is not possible to pardon someone for things they might do in the future.
That is not specified in the Constitution, and is an open question. Nobody has ever tried, to my knowledge.
This is true. No one has tried, and it hasn’t been adjudicated. However everyone treats pardons as needing to be backwards-looking.
Removed by mod
No because morality and integrity.
Removed by mod
Too many complaints about being political. Locking.
I would not. People should not do things that are morally wrong, regardless of whether they will be punished for it or not.
