They do arguably have a point to existence I think, in that it is virtually impossible to create a completely ideal set of laws, and so there are always going to be cases where a person is technically guilty of breaking a law but hasn’t done anything that punishment is appropriate for, or who is probably falsely convicted but has failed to prove it and run out of appeals and resources. They have a serious potential for misuse, but literally any power does, electing the kind of person that would misuse them will always cause problems of some kind.
That’s how it effectively works in most of the Western world. The head of state usually issue pardons but on advise of the government (especially in countries where the head of state is not the head of government) or an independent comission.
They do arguably have a point to existence I think, in that it is virtually impossible to create a completely ideal set of laws, and so there are always going to be cases where a person is technically guilty of breaking a law but hasn’t done anything that punishment is appropriate for, or who is probably falsely convicted but has failed to prove it and run out of appeals and resources. They have a serious potential for misuse, but literally any power does, electing the kind of person that would misuse them will always cause problems of some kind.
Then pardons should at minimum be the purview of the Senate or House, instead of a single person.
I think the rationale is that, when it’s a single individual, they can’t pass the buck or blame the group. It’s a final appeal at a human level.
The trick is not electing a troll.
That’s how it effectively works in most of the Western world. The head of state usually issue pardons but on advise of the government (especially in countries where the head of state is not the head of government) or an independent comission.
In the end chaos always remains in power.