Joe Biden Pardoned His Own Son: Biden Misused His Powers? What Is The Law On Pardons In The Usa?

Introduction

One of the most contentious aspects of presidential authority is the power to pardon. Established in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the provision confers broad powers on the president to forgive federal crimes with relative disregard for standard judicial processes. While this right has been touted by supporters as a necessary bulwark against judicial overreaching, detractors have always viewed this with suspicion, especially as related to family members and friends.

This storm surrounding the possibility that President Joe Biden may pardon his son, Hunter Biden, brings another wrinkle in debating an appropriate, ethical boundary on his authority to use executive privilege. On criminal charges against him-for which he faces a string of federal counts of tax fraud and illegal firearm ownership-a lightning rod has sprouted a political and legal analysis as some question whether such influence crosses too wide an improper and forbidden threshold.

This article goes deep into the controversy of Biden pardon with legal and ethical aspects. It further reviews the ways in which other countries regulate executive clemency and compares this framework of the U.S. system to provide an analysis of accountability within it. Lastly, it suggests reforms for ensuring accountability and trust among citizens toward the judiciary.

Presidential Pardon in the U.S.

Under the U.S. Constitution, nearly untrammelled pardon powers in regard to federal offences have been bestowed on presidents, intended as an offsetting check against judicial rigidity. These powers encompass crimes yet to be charged, convictions that have already been rendered, and even commutations of sentences. This sweeping authority was meant to offer an outlet through which justice might be achieved in situations where the system has acted too harshly or even unjustly.

However, the lack of specific limitations on this power has made it a tool susceptible to controversy. Criticism of pardons as instruments of political favoritism or self-serving action has occurred throughout history. Perhaps one of the most debated uses of this power is the pardon issued by President Gerald Ford to Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal. Ford used this rationale that it healed the nation, but critics saw it as a way to hide Nixon from accountability.

It's not explicitly forbidden in the Constitution to pardon relatives, which brings ethical dilemmas into this process. The ambiguity thus allows for a scenario such as the potential Hunter Biden pardon, raising alarms about the possible existence of conflicts of interest. Pardons are unilateral decisions, as impeachment requires congressional approval, without checks or balances to curtail potential abuse.

This has been viewed by some to reflect the understanding of the framers with respect to an executive who would be guided by moral considerations. But this view of an idealistic world is at variance with the dynamics of political operations in the contemporary era where personal and partisan interests play a dominant role. It is against such a background that calls for reform such as making pardons subject to congressional oversight or judicial review are becoming louder.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

Hunter Biden's lawsuits on tax evasion and the illegal possession of a weapon brought the question of presidential clemency to light. On the legal front, President Joe Biden has a right to pardon his son because the U.S. Constitution gives power to the president to "grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States," except one: the power cannot be exercised when impeachment is involved. The president is almost all-powerful since there are no formal checks that can actually prevent the pardoning of close family or allies, which could therefore lead to abuse if misused

The legal implications of a presidential pardon in Hunter Biden's case go beyond the specifics of his charges. Critics argue that using this power in a case involving a family member undermines the notion of fairness in the legal system. The primary concern is whether such a pardon would be perceived as a misuse of power, favoring those in positions of influence over the general public. 

A history of such past controversies-the pardon by President Clinton of Marc Rich, for example, in return for political contributions-underlines that misuse of the pardon power can further erode public trust when it appears that political or personal relationships played a significant role in the decision.

In the ethical light, pardoning a relative is an issue related to separation of powers and conflict of interest. The duty of the president is to ensure justice as applied impartially, and thus, pardoning a family member might make him appear more loyal to the family than just to the process of administration of justice. 

This sets a moral dilemma: even though the president has constitutional authority to pardon, doing so on behalf of a family member can be perceived as a political favor, and therefore compromise justice and equal protection. In fact, a few legal scholars have gone on record questioning whether the president has too much unfettered discretion to pardon individuals whom he knows or whom he favors in the political process and suggested clearer lines be drawn so accountability and transparency prevail

Neither can public perception of such a pardon be ignored. In a polarized political environment, perceived self-serving acts will affect the long-term reputation of a president's legacy and credibility. If the public sees Hunter Biden's pardon as the political class exercising power to serve selfish purposes, it may further eat away at their trust within the political system and legal frameworks, complicating the ability of this administration to govern effectively. 

The optics of using executive clemency to benefit a relative in a high-profile case could invite criticism not only from political opponents but also from the public at large, who may view this as a failure to uphold the values of fairness and justice.

This tension between legal authority and ethical responsibility underscores a broader question: should there be firmer guidelines governing the use of presidential pardons, and in particular when personal or political motivations are involved? Such considerations are crucial in maintaining the integrity of an executive clemency process in a democratic society.

Global Models: How Others Manage Clemency

Compared with other democracies, the United States stands out for the scope of its executive pardon authority. Many countries have adopted tighter frameworks for controlling clemency in order to limit abuse. These global models are instructive for any U.S. reform efforts.

In France, pardons by the president must clear tight filters. The process requires consultation with judicial advisory bodies to ensure that the decision aligns with public interest. Such bodies examine whether the pardon serves justice or undermines it. Arbitrary or politically motivated pardons are rare because the system favors transparency and accountability. This is particularly pertinent to compare it with other nations since France has built strong legal safeguards around clemency powers making any form of political favoritism difficult to influence the decision
Germany is yet another example of a balanced approach. Clemency powers are divided between federal and state presidents, and all their decisions are subjected to legal scrutiny. The purpose is to maintain the rule of law with a few exceptions in exceptional cases. Since it is decentralized, unilateral abuse is less likely because several levels of government involvement will help to bring out fairness and impartiality. It is very different from the executive-driven pardon power in the U.S., which might give a feeling of unbalanced checks.

Under the Constitution of India, powers to grant clemency lie with the President under Article 72, however, in practice, they are exercised based on the advice from the Council of Ministers. This model makes it hard for arbitrary discretion and decisions to occur and the exercise of pardoning authority truly reflects collective governance rather than individual discretion. In fact, India's practice is further subjected to judicial review that enables the courts to look into whether these exercises result in violation of some legal and constitutional principles.

Even in an authoritarian regime, there are limitations on pardon powers. While President Vladimir Putin has broad pardoning authority in Russia, the process is still predicated on recommendations from a pardons commission. While critics may argue that the checks and balances are essentially symbolic, they represent some recognition of the need for oversight. In this respect, the system provides a very limited form of accountability against unchecked abuse of power

It reveals from comparative analysis that systems containing judicial or legislative oversight tend to inspire greater public trust. Take the examples of Canada and South Korea as countries in which judicial involvement has kept pardon decisions safe from suspicion. In South Korea, for example, a dedicated committee assesses applications for clemency, providing that each case is sufficiently scrutinized before any determination can be made
On the contrary, the unbridled pardon power wielded by the U.S. seems anachronistic and reflects neither the expectations of current transparency nor those of current accountability. Highly politicized cases often cast a very bad light over the process. It becomes controversial; therefore, an overhaul to conform with global best practices, so that pardon serves justice and not interest or politically, may occur. It may include mechanisms like judicial review or advisory panels, similar to those in France or Germany, to improve both public confidence and fairness in the clemency process.

Calls for Reform and Future Implications

Calls to reform presidential pardon powers are also increased by the controversy around Hunter Biden. Advocates reason that judicial review or even congressional oversight could prevent their misuse while preserving the pardon's original intent.

Some of the proposed reforms suggest that each pardon by the president should have the public reasons stated for granting the pardon. This way, it would be easier to know what was done and, indeed, whether it aligned with the principles of justice and fairness. Another proposed restriction on pardons is when members of the family or those closely tied in terms of finance or politics to the president receive a pardon.

Legislative changes can also redefine the pardon power. Congress may enact laws that will restrict the president's use of the pardon to a pre-conviction act or limit pardons of specific categories of crimes, such as corruption or treason. These would continue the utility of the pardon while trying to correct abuses.

This also reminds us of the public accountability angle in the Hunter Biden case. The president must balance, besides the legality of his actions, the ethical and political ramifications. In a democratic dispensation, the perception of fair and unbiased processes is as important as the law itself.

This case has implications at the global level for other nations in terms of the perception of the US justice system. The United States, as a world leader, sets standards that impact the governance of other countries. Even the appearance of abuses of power under the color of law erodes the moral authority on issues like human rights and the rule of law.

The debate about presidential pardons has not been new, but the controversy surrounding Biden speaks for the urgency. Inasmuch as public trust in the institutions continues to be low, making it indispensable that clemency powers do not undermine the integrity of the system of justice to be exercised responsibly.

Conclusion

The pardon in question by President Biden to his son, Hunter Biden, raises critical questions on the scope and limits of the executive authority in the United States. Although the US Constitution grants the presidents near absolute powers to pardon federal offenses, unclear checks and balances leave open doors for ethical dilemmas and political conflicts. The case is a representative of the tension between constitutional prerogative and the possible abuse of power when personal or familial interests are involved. Such concerns have risen because public trust in the fairness of the justice system would be damaged by an appearance of favouritism.

Analysis of international models demonstrates how other countries have enacted checks to prevent the abuse of clemency powers. For instance, in France, Germany, and India, judicial review, advisory consultations, and multiple branches of government participation check the potential abuse of pardons. 

These models are important lessons for the U.S., which may argue that reforms could help bring the country's clemency powers into alignment with the current standards of accountability and transparency. Examples may include better guidelines on the use of pardons and restrictions in their use where there are evident conflicts of interest.

The case of Hunter Biden is a useful reminder that exercising constitutional authority to preserve public trust in the legal system is a delicate balance. As controversies relating to abuses of pardons continue to build, making sure that such powers are utilized responsibly would go a long way toward ensuring the integrity of democratic governance. Through reviewing international models and changing its current system, the U.S. can make sure that clemency powers are utilized in a manner that reflects the spirit of the Constitution and that of justice and fairness. In a polarized political environment where even the appearance of corruption undermines confidence in democratic institutions, clearer oversight is more imperative than ever.

FAQs

Q1. What is a presidential pardon?
A presidential pardon is an act of executive clemency which absolves someone committing a federal offense whether pre-trial or post-trial. It eliminates the penalty meted out for the offense, but it does not vacate the conviction except if it specifically indicates otherwise.

Q2. Can the United States President pardon his family member?
Yes, as revealed by the U.S. Constitution, there is no explicit stipulation of who the president cannot pardon; in theory, he can pardon anyone including his family members, or even himself. However, the act may attract ethical implications and public outcry.

Q3. Is there an existing law provision that holds the president of the United States responsible for abusing pardon powers?
Presently, no statutory law provision can hold a U.S. president in check from allegedly using his pardon power for greater good. There have been calls for reforms, but nothing was really changed.

Q4. How do other countries regulate pardon powers?
In France, pardons are aligned with the public interest and undergo advisory consultations. In Germany, pardons are reviewed by both the judiciary and the government. India requires presidential pardons aligned with the opinion of the Council of Ministers, thereby avoiding arbitrary or nepotistic usage.

Q5. Was any U.S. president ever accused of controversial pardons in the past?
Indeed, it includes examples such as when President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon after the Watergate scandal and President Trump pardoning allies like Roger Stone. This has led to debates regarding curbing the powers of executive clemency.

Q6. What would be the possible reforms to curb the abuse of pardon powers?
Proposed reforms include making pardons subject to judicial or legislative review, especially when involving family members or close acquaintances, and an ethical code to ensure the process is transparent and fair.

Q7. Does a presidential pardon declare the person innocent?
No, a pardon forgives the crime but does not establish innocence. It simply removes the legal consequences of the crime.