Frequent commenter JutGory suggested the George Santos commutation as an Ethics Quiz. I don’t think that should be necessary. Yes, Trump pardoned—technically commuted the sentence of— Santos, who was slated to serve 7 years in prison, and the Trump Deranged are freaking out. As usual, they are embarrassing themselves. You may have missed it because my Santos comment was appended late to yesterday’s ‘No Kings’ is Desperate and Stupid post: “This morning one of my once astute Facebook friends, a Harvard grad, was moaning about how Trump pardoning George Santos proves he’s a king. George Santos! The pardon power, which includes commutation, is 100% Presidential, legal and traditional: EVERY President who pardons anyone is acting like a king. (Biden, or his autopen, pardoned his criminal son.) Santos is a petty crook, but he’s not a threat to society, like say, the killers, rapists and drug dealers my friend’s party let into the United States over the previous four years.”
Over to you, Portia:
The quality of mercy is not strain’d.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptered sway.
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute to God Himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this:
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea,
Which, if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence ‘gainst the merchant there.
Trump said that George was having a tough time in prison, and he decided to let him out. In such a case, the distinction between a pardon and a commutation is a distinction without a difference. Now its up to Santos to try to do something productive with his life. Okay! Trump had the power to give him a break and he gave the guy a break. Mercy is ethical except when it is irresponsible or a quid pro quo, which means it isn’t really merciful. Santos can’t do anything for Trump….not like, say, what Hunter can do for Joe Biden (not rat his father out to save his own skin) or what Marc Rich’s ex-wife did for Bill Clinton in exchange for Clinton pardoning the fugitive (giving a huge gift to Bill’s Presidential library.)
I’ve made it very clear that I think George Santos is scum. However, on the long, long list of bad people shown mercy by Presidents, he’s barely a blip. If you think the President shouldn’t have the power to pardon or commute actual or looming punishments for people who have done very bad things, like, say, Chelsea Manning, a traitor; the Vietnam draft dodgers (all pardoned be Carter) and the Confederate soldiers pardoned by Andrew Johnson who took up arms against the United States, then try to get the power eliminated through elections, lobbying and advocacy. (Good luck with that!) Otherwise, like so many other false examples being cited as President Trump’s “abuse of power,” the pardon power is legitimate, it has its uses (it is a critical safety valve for a fallible justice system) and from an ethical perspective, showing mercy is ethical.
Now don’t make me mention that asshole George Santos ever again.
Ethics Alarms 
I remember what Jeff Jacoby wrote.
https://jeffjacoby.com/28337/abolish-the-presidential-pardon-power
Any critique?
Gross miscarriages of justice do occur. Some people are convicted based on questionable legal grounds or on political grounds. Examples are Eugene Debs, a socialist politician who was convicted in 1918 for protesting the draft, and whose sentence was later commuted by Warren Harding. Since then, we have stepped away from the interpretation of the First Amendment by Woodrow Wilson and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Other examples are farmers and fishermen who committed a non mens rea crime against an administrative regulation created by a federal department, and that carries a mandatory minimum sentence.
The pardon power of a Governor or a President serves as a necessary safety valve to offer relief for miscarriages of justice, prosecution of non mens rea crimes, and excessive sentences. Sometimes a person who really deserved the sentence is pardoned. That should not have to be a problem. The great English jurist William Blackstone once said that it better for hundred guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted and sentenced.
I’m not sure how the Blackstone ratio applies in this case since there didn’t seem to be the possibility of convicting an innocent person. Santos pled guilty to the charges and, according to U.S. Attorney Breon Peace, he also admitted to “a litany of other crimes”.
My point is that the pardon power acts as a safety valve in case an innocent person is convicted, a guilty person gets an unreasonable high sentence, or the law on which a person is convicted is unfair or unjust. In that case the legal bias should be in favor of the defendant, as in Blackstone’s ratio.
Did Trump pardon George Santos or did he just commute his sentence?
Commuted: I just clarified this in the post. It’s a use of the pardon power, and parctically, there is no difference in Santos’case, but he wasn’t “pardoned.”
It was a commutation.
https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/polis-commutes-sentence
How many other Governors have pardon powers? This isn’t exactly a list full of good guys.
I fully support the commutation of Santos’ sentence. It easily can be seen as the ethical thing for Trump to have done, once some of the reasons are presented.
While not everybody issues them, presidents have done many, many commutations and pardons. And, why argue about something we can’t stop; Trump had full authority for this. It’s easy to find other of instances of pardons that are as bad, or worse. And, it just might work out well if Santos now makes something good of his life. Santos, in his letter of October 13 to Trump, re-stated his fealty to Trump and the Republican Party [No! There was no ass-kissing involved. Just a bit of honey], but the main point was asking for a second chance, and who doesn’t deserve that? It’s not like he was guilty of rape or murder, right? Charging Santos may not have been just another attack on Republicans, but, we all know there have been plenty of those. As Santos pointed out in that letter to Trump, during nearly three months in prison, he already had suffered plenty; conditions in prison were difficult and dehumanizing. Perhaps, most importantly, on entering a guilty plea, he offered his “deepest apology”. And, he cried while apologizing.
So, yes, it must be seen as a completely ethical commutation of a sentence for many rational reasons. I do feel a bit of regret that his victims, including taxpayers, will likely not get restitution of what he stole from them. But, that’s not the worst thing.
I have no idea at all whether this is sincere or sarcastic. I guess there’s some skill in that, but readers knowing what the hell you’re trying to say is helpful to a discussion, and gratuitous snark is not. If that’s what it is. Again, I can’t tell. Was I supposed to?
Santos’s victims were not getting restitution whether he was in prison or not, so that’s a straw man.
I saw some rationalizations in the lead in, so I decided to amplify and add to those. I was tempted to number my thoughts based on an excellent, comprehensive listing I have seen, and while that would have made my sarcasm (snark?) clear, I thought that would have been too much.
Pointing out that the Pardon Power is a privilege every President has wielded and that it is a deliberate part of the Founders’ concept of the Executive is not an “everybody does it” rationalization” or that Santos is far, far from either “the worst: use of the power or the most consequential isn’t a #22 rationalization. It’s just a fact, and a factual rebuttal of those who claim that there is anything heinous about this particular commutation. Mercy isn’t heinous.
They could still sue him.
and a later pardon would not obviate the lawsuit.
I do feel a bit of regret that his victims, including taxpayers, will likely not get restitution of what he stole from them.
Santos can still be sued, even if he had been pardoned instead of just commutated.
some random reasons I thought it would be a good quiz
Trump thought he was being treated unfairly by being kept in solitary
he’s only served 3 months
he got 7 years when Diddy (?) recently got 4 for “worse” (?) conduct
it was a commutation, not a pardon, so Santos remains a convicted criminal
Trump did not defend Santos, acknowledging Santos is a bad guy
Trump might have been sensitive to the political nature of the prosecution (though it does not appear political, as Santos was criticized from both sides of the aisle for really dishonest behavior (that has to hurt when there is bipartisan support in Congress for the proposition that you are a scumbag.))
all in all, if it was an ethics quiz, I would have come down as ethical. My one reservation was he only served 3 months of a 7-year sentence. That was mitigated by the fact that it was a commutation and not a pardon
-Jut
I’ve been reading a bit about the Federal Pardon, and was surprised at how empty it is. After a conviction, the conviction is considered a public record. A pardon does NOT result in the record being sealed or deleted.
Thus, a background check (during employment or otherwise) would reveal the conviction. In terms of reputation, the pardon is purely symbolic. (Note that in some states, an absolute pardon can be issued, which would sealed the criminal record, but that is not a feature of a Federal Pardon).
A pardon does have some teath, especially for a Federal felony conviction. In jurisdictions where voting rights are abridged and/or or the ability to run for office are suspended due to a felony conviction, a Federal pardon would remove that disability (but only for legal disabilities stemming solely from the federal conviction).
Thus, commuting the sentence (versus pardoning the crime) has a potential distinction in that Santos may be ineligible to run for office again, depending on where he lives. Republican states are more like to disenfranchise convicted felons, so Santos’s options for public office are extremely limited (I would assume his campaign would be D.O.A. in a Democrat-majority state).
Use of commutation vs pardon here is particularly defensible, his Santos’s crime are of particular note due to office of public trust he violated and may still be barred from holding.
My position on the use of the Pardon Power has long been that it should be used in three circumstances:
I don’t see how Santos fits any of these criteria.