Missouri governor pardons couple who aimed guns at BLM protesters

[Dill]

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Whether the prosecutors of misdemeanor violations should have been prosecuted is not pertinent to the question of whether the
misdemeanor violations of unrepentant perps should rise to the level of pardon.

It absolutely does and why is easily explainable.  DA's tend to overcharge so they can pull back the serious charges in a plea bargain.  It makes it look like they're giving you a break when, in fact, they're only giving back what shouldn't have been charged in the first place.  This is done to facilitate plea bargaining and free up time on the court docket.  When the DA fabricates evidence to facilitate this you've irrevocably tainted the entire case.  Yes, the McClosky's could have appealed, but that takes time and money, both of which they should not have to spend.  As to why the governor knows about the case, well, that's easy.  It was made a national news story and the corrupt DA used the case to raise funds for her re-election campaign, another huge corrupt no no.  You want to argue why other cases are more deserving of a pardon, fine.  But you've yet to even attempt to explain why a pardon was unwarranted in the McClosky case.  All you've done is use it to paint me as a 2A zealot (which is laughable as Bel is actually more extreme on that subject than I am, yet you never say anything to him.  I wonder why?*).  You've made zero attempt to refute any point made as to why the pardon was warranted.

I've done nothing but explain why a pardon was unwarranted in the McCloskey case.

E.g., I have laid out, ever more explicitly, the traditional criteria for granting pardons, including exhaustion of other legal recourse, sincere repentance, and gross injustice--as in serious harm to the convicted. Even if wrongly convicted by prosecutorial misconduct, a person convicted of a misdemeanor who pays his fine and goes home does not fall into the latter category for pardon purposes, because the scale of harm is so much less than presented in typical pardon cases.

And I've argued the McCloskey case simply does not fit these criteria. Other legal recourse has NOT been exhausted, they are not repentant, and for a MISDEMEANOR they were jumped ahead of the line before people who had suffered serious harm. Pardon or no, the McCloskey's would still be back in their gated community after the conviction.

You, on the other hand, have NOT shown how the McCloskey case meets these criteria. 

Instead, you argue as if really bad, corrupt prosecutors make this case a candidate for pardon, regardless of whether much harm was actually done to people who were guilty as charged for a MISDEMEANOR and unrepentant--people who would be back in their comfortable homes 30 minutes after conviction. Disbarring and prosecuting a corrupt lawyer would serve the people's interest, but how would pardoning people who broke the law and would do it again??

If the prosecutors' misconduct is so plain, why would the defendants' appeal be required to overturn the conviction--unless "there is more to the story"?  And could you justify the McCloskey pardon to Strickland on grounds that appeals take time and money the McCloskey's should not have to spend?

As plainly as possible--what moves injustice to the level of pardon consideration is HARM TO THE DEFENDENT. Prosecutorial misconduct may cause that harm or it may not, but either way, it is the harm that draws the pardon. The guilty McCloskeys would not have an even better pardon case even if you found a link showing that Biden approved the tampering. That you even go in that direction, while ignoring degrees of harm, suggests that you you don't understand the pardon as an institution. That's why you keep trotting out criteria for prosecutorial corruption as basis for the pardon like some Trump card, thereby flattening the great difference in harm between 43 years lost to an INNOCENT in one case and an exciting afternoon as court celebrities for those ACTUALLY GUILTY in the other. 

*Wonder no longer: If Bels says that Trump SCOTUS appointments are more likely to defend our individual freedoms than Hilary appointees would have, I'll grant he is at least as extreme and say something. 

(08-08-2021, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So far it does not look like you are interested in the implications of the McCloskey case for the institution of the pardon; you just
want to go over the prosecutorial misconduct in a case involving 2A issues.  

A gross fabrication on your part.  You've literally become what you purport to despise.  I guess you stared too long into the abyss.  

I am not "fabricating" either your inattention to pardon criteria and precedent, or your constant return to "prosecutorial misconduct" as something that should drive a misdemeanor case rather than degree of harm.

So still far short of 'what I purport to despise'.