What is giving you the idea that a pardon automatically admits guilt? I’ve seen this so many times and it makes absolutely no sense. There’s one court case from the 20’s in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon “may imply guilt.” And there’s like 528 court cases saying the opposite. There’s also nothing in the verbage of a pardon that states that. It simply removes any legal consequences from relevant acts. I’m not sure why so many people insist that if you accept any type of pardon for any reason, you are confessing to have perpetuated whatever you are accused of. It makes absolutely no sense. You could be guilty as hell. Or you could have been on the other side of the planet and accused of something random. I’m either case, all a pardon does is just get you out of trouble.
This isn’t to say that I think Giuliani is innocent or anything. He’s a complete and utter dirt bag. But of all things, him merely accepting a pardon is not the smoking gun a lot of people seem to think it is.
in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon “may imply guilt.”
That’s what’s called obiter dicta: a side comment with no direct bearing on the case at hand and with no potential to set precedent. And you’re right, Garland (the name of the case) keeps getting cited by people as though it is precedent.
There is no part of the pardon process where admission of guilt is required, not even a checkbox on a form. You either accept a pardon or you don’t. That’s it.
Anyway, the existence (upheld by courts many times) of blanket pardons renders the admission of guilt argument absurd. If you accept a pardon for (for example) any crimes you might potentially be charged with between January and February of 2025, what are you pleading guilty to? Every one of those possible crimes? Really? And yeah, it’s possible to pardon someone for something they haven’t even been charged with yet. The only thing that has to be in the past is the time period the pardon covers.
Further evidence that the Garland dicta is bullshit is that, since the US was founded, pardons have, on occasion, been used to correct miscarriages of justice. In that case, even the person issuing the pardon is of the view that the pardonee is not guilty. So “we’re pardoning you because we think you’re not guilty, and to accept the pardon, you have to admit guilt”? Again, that makes no sense.
What is giving you the idea that a pardon automatically admits guilt? I’ve seen this so many times and it makes absolutely no sense. There’s one court case from the 20’s in which the court suggested that accepting a pardon “may imply guilt.” And there’s like 528 court cases saying the opposite. There’s also nothing in the verbage of a pardon that states that. It simply removes any legal consequences from relevant acts. I’m not sure why so many people insist that if you accept any type of pardon for any reason, you are confessing to have perpetuated whatever you are accused of. It makes absolutely no sense. You could be guilty as hell. Or you could have been on the other side of the planet and accused of something random. I’m either case, all a pardon does is just get you out of trouble.
This isn’t to say that I think Giuliani is innocent or anything. He’s a complete and utter dirt bag. But of all things, him merely accepting a pardon is not the smoking gun a lot of people seem to think it is.
That’s what’s called obiter dicta: a side comment with no direct bearing on the case at hand and with no potential to set precedent. And you’re right, Garland (the name of the case) keeps getting cited by people as though it is precedent.
There is no part of the pardon process where admission of guilt is required, not even a checkbox on a form. You either accept a pardon or you don’t. That’s it.
Anyway, the existence (upheld by courts many times) of blanket pardons renders the admission of guilt argument absurd. If you accept a pardon for (for example) any crimes you might potentially be charged with between January and February of 2025, what are you pleading guilty to? Every one of those possible crimes? Really? And yeah, it’s possible to pardon someone for something they haven’t even been charged with yet. The only thing that has to be in the past is the time period the pardon covers.
Further evidence that the Garland dicta is bullshit is that, since the US was founded, pardons have, on occasion, been used to correct miscarriages of justice. In that case, even the person issuing the pardon is of the view that the pardonee is not guilty. So “we’re pardoning you because we think you’re not guilty, and to accept the pardon, you have to admit guilt”? Again, that makes no sense.