08-09-2021, 11:41 AM
(08-09-2021, 04:57 AM)Dill Wrote:
The cases are "unequal" for a number of reasons, if one follows the usual criteria for pardon consideration, such as gross injustice beyond ready legal repair and sincere repentance. The Strickland case--a FELONY conviction for a murder involving 43 years wrongly taken from a man's life--has gone through the pardon process and parole board along with many other worthy cases, and so meets the usual criteria.
The McCloskey case--a MISDEMEANOR conviction of people who indeed committed the crime for which they were accused, never went to jail, and would "do it again"--does not meet any of the usual criteria for pardons. (Has a MISDEMEANOR conviction EVER been pardoned in Missouri?)
You have again utterly failed to address the actual reason for the pardon, which is the gross prosecutorial misconduct admitted to by the DA, and which now has the DA in very serious jeopardy of being disbarred. You fail to address it because you know it proves my point. Your constant dodging of this most salient point is very telling.
Quote:The McCloskey case does, however, meet the UNUSUAL criteria of a pardon for political purposes.
If so, then it would counter balance the prosecution using the case for political purposes. You, again, fail to address a major reason for the pardon.
Quote: If you argue "the governor did the right thing by them" in raising their misdemeanor to the level of a pardon, then I am not "arguing against a point you never made."
Oh no, sorry, Dill. You in no way substantiate this claim. You are absolutely arguing a point I never made and your simply stating "nuh uh" doesn't change that.
Quote:Lol Who would defend a pardon on the grounds "minimal time and effort" were expended in granting it, rather than the ethical/legal merits of the individual pardon itself vis a vis others that might have been granted? ("Sure Mr. Strickland, you lost 43 years of your life, and sure, you have gone through the proper channels, but signing the McCloskey pardon simply took less time than signing yours would have. Just because you are in the news doesn't mean you should be bumped ahead of the line. The McCloskeys suffered prosecutorial misconduct too!")
It is amazing how rapidly you are morphing into Fred. I didn't defend it based on those grounds, I used that statement to refute your assertion that "time and effort" was expended on the McClosky pardon that you feel would have better used elsewhere. You don't get to turn my refutation of one of your points into a pillar of my own argument. Put simply, quite deliberately twisting my argument to suit your purposes.
Quote:How does that "shoot down" the fact that the misdemeanor conviction could have been voided without a pardon?
You keep using the comparison between the two, completely unrelated, cases as if it somehow invalidates the McClosky pardon. Either the pardon was warranted or it was not. My position is that it absolutely was due to the gross miscarriage of justice caused by the severe abuse of the DA's office. If you disagree, and you've yet to articulate a logical argument as to why, then that's fine. But don't act like you've provided an ironclad argument against it, because your position is totally lacking in substance.
