Biden's Son Pardon Sparks Global Debate on Presidential Power

STORY IN SHORT: PRESIDENTIAL PARDON IN THE SPOTLIGHT

News that United States President Joe Biden could pardon his son, Hunter Biden, amidst federal charges of tax offences and carrying an illegal firearm has opened the debate on presidential pardon powers as well as ethics. Hunter Biden is one person who will end up receiving perhaps the most contentious pardon in the history of modern America.

In the United States, the presidential pardon power, given by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, is broad and unconditional. Presidents can pardon an individual for federal offences before charges or convictions are actually made. 

Critics argue that pardoning a family member is not within the ethical boundaries, making it questionable to the public eye regarding their trust in the judicial system. So far, Biden hasn't spoken to whether he would approve a pardon like that, but speculation has sparked debate in executive authority abuse.

While Biden's defenders are arguing that the expansive scope of the pardon is a needed check on the judiciary by the executive, critics of the move call for legislative corrections to curb its abuse when personal or family conflicts of interest are involved. The discussion raises more fundamental questions about accountability and the limits of the presidency in the United States and globally.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND GLOBAL COMPARISONS

Presidential pardon powers differ radically across countries, with most limiting these powers to prevent any possible abuse. In the United States, the Constitution gives the president almost unbridled pardon authority over federal crimes, with no specific checks against self-serving or nepotistic acts. While such controversial pardons as Ford's pardon of Nixon have given rise to calls for reform, such calls have never come to fruition.

However, in France and Germany, there are stricter restrictions. Pardons in France, for instance, have to be made according to principles of public interest. There should not be any pardons issued in a manner that suits the interests of individuals but for justice. Similarly, in Germany, pardons are made by the federal or state president but through severe scrutiny so that they remain valid within legal parameters.

India's framework, under Article 72 of the Constitution, vests clemency powers in the President, but these decisions are made based on the advice of the Council of Ministers. This collaborative model minimises the risk of unilateral abuse.

This makes it a case of need in the U.S. to have stronger ethical guidelines for preventing perceived conflicts of interest. Comparative frameworks suggest judicial and legislative oversight could act as effective checks against such potential misuse of pardon powers, maintaining public confidence in governance.