Talk:Pardon

message: Mention pardons at state level by individual governors in the US. Presidential pardons are only for federal crimes, I believe. --Jiang — Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 5 August 2003
:It states in two places that pardons are at federal and state levels in the US is it not clear enough? Alex756 06:53, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In some US states (e.g. Georgia) the pardon power is held not by the governor but by a state board. I don't have a source but I believe that in at least one case this was done to prevent the sale of pardons and/or clemency, whether in reaction to a specific scandal I don't know. 209.149.235.254 22:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Nebraska the Board of Pardons consists of the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The governor alone cannot pardon anybody. 98.19.47.73 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the United States 

message: Removed:
:"Pardon is different from amnesty, in that pardoning does not cancel the legal guilt of the criminal, but merely the completion of the sentence, while amnesty removes all legal effects of the conviction."
This is definitely not true of the Presidential pardon under U.S. law; there has been considerable litigation resulting in case law stating that a pardon not only nullifies the conviction but also prevents the imposition of any civil sanctions for the underlying conduct. This amnesty distinction needs to be made jurisdiction-specific. Ellsworth 00:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon v. amnesty 

message: I think what it says here is pretty confused.  There is such a thing as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, but surely this is something completely different from a royal pardon.  It would be worth saying something about the judge's summing up in R. v Waddell, related to the Paddy Meehan case. PatGallacher 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely with Pat Gallacher. Whoever wrote this is simply wrong Jezzabr 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK situation 

message: The sections on national pardons should be sorted alphabetically (or by some other criteria) not in the order they are added. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Ossie 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering non-NPOV 

message: Is there a difference between a pardon and a reprieve?  Fishal 03:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is a difference. A pardon is to completely forgive someone for their crime and a reprieve is the act of lessening the penalty of the crime without forgiving the crime itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.48.247 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a commutation. A reprieve is actually to delay the beginning of the punishment. Look it up in any dictionary. 72.75.91.17 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reprieve

message: Any idea why this redirects here?  The "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974" is a UK Law that dictates when criminal convictions are considered "spent" and no longer need to be reported to the public.  It is not in any sense a pardon. --Kitsonk 01:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

message: I don't think the religious aspect is appropriate for this article. Maybe its own article or under some other, related Christian article, but given that this is under the criminal procedure banner... Well, just my thoughts. Mkilly 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: As mentioned above, this piece of UK law should not redirect here. It badly needs its own article - can anyone sufficiently knowledgeable reading this write one? Apart from anything else, it should be pointed out that the RoO Act does not apply when a British citizen travels to the US - meaning that even a "spent" conviction disqualifies one from being eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. This is somewhat controversial in the UK, though not half as much so as the fact that people who have been arrested even if released without charge are also ineligible. As far as I know the UK does not discriminate in this last way against US citizens travelling here. 86.143.52.79 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RoO Act already has its own article, at Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I have adjusted the redirect from "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" to point to it.--George Burgess 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (again) 

message: Does anybody know whether the idea of pardoning springs from the christian roots of the countries mentioned in the article or whether it springs from the feudal/aristocratic heritage of the states in discussion. 
Does it exist in Arab, Asian, African societies as well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.61.134.136 (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardoning: Christianity versus Feudal societies? 

message: 'A pardon is no longer considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed.'
This is inconsistent with pardoning dead deserters.  Maybe someone can clarify the correct situation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.181.39.143 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pardoning dead deserters

message: the president pardon himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.64.146 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems so:  Mdiamante (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so, or Richard Nixon would have. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon; one of the first things he did in office.70.162.46.94 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can... 

message: first, was he really pardoned?  is a pardon the same as a commutation of sentence? Second, how can it be 'controversial' when the news is barely out?  you need at least a day or two, don't you, to get sources that support the statement that it is controversial.142.68.47.29 23:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  was Libby pardoned?  how controversial? 

message: Since the article does not mention christianity or other theology except for the word church, I removed the categories theology and christian theology.  I am sure they could be added back if they did reflect any theology in later revisions.  I'll leave the tags alone on this talk page however. Sultec (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category changes 

message: I have removed edits made by one of a number of blocked sockpuppets that have been spamming Wikipedia with Jacob M Appel-related links or references. The article already contains two references to Appel's Huffington Post column, and adding his name and quote to the article gives Appel and his views a prominence or recognized expertise that doesn't appear to exist -- he's not widely mentioned in mainstream media or other reliable sources on this or any other subject that I can find. I'm not opposed to Appel's views being included in the article, but without any third-party verification, the content and links seem excessive. Flowanda | Talk 06:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is to showcase diverse ideas, I believe HOLLgu (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive linking to columnist's blog -- September 2010 

message: First of all, prisoners who exhaust their appeals have an executive pardon as a last resort. Presumably if a state governor issues a pardon at that point (say to a death row inmate), it implies he/she doesn't believe the convict is guilty.
Second of all, even if you were innocent, refusal of the pardon means you stay in jail right? So pardoned people have an incentive to accept the pardon regardless. Actually, I can't imagine someone refusing a pardon unless they were guilty, never asked for a pardon, and thought they deserved their sentence. 169.231.52.208 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can accepting a pardon imply guilt? 

message: Would it be appropriate for a blurb about posthumous pardons in the article? It would seem those are notable enough maybe even for a stand alone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumous Pardon 

message: This article says
:: a pardon does not set aside the conviction
But at dictionary.law.com it says
:: A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated as innocent.
The latter had been my understanding.  Can someone cite a source for assertions made here? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annulling the conviction 

message: Isn't another name for this concept "grace"? If so, it should be added to the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grace 

message: Examples: 
#UN Decades of observation on Colonialism - https://www.un.org/en/sections/observances/international-decades/index.html - when reading the documents there is mention about inter state/government pardon and what this concists of.  I started an article about it here on the wikipedia, but that has been destroyed by some wikipedian people with responsibility over the quality of articles etc.
#VIDEO. En Algérie, Macron s'excuse pour la colonisation, une ... Feb 15, 2017 - En déplacement en Algérie, le candidat à la présidentielle Emmanuel Macron a estimé mardi que la colonisation par la France avait été un ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pardon between states / regimes e.g. for crimes committed by a coloniser during the colonial era 

message: The article begins "Pardon is the postponement of punishment, often with a view to a pardon or other review of the sentence (such as when the reprieving authority has no power to grant an immediate pardon)." Defining a pardon as the thing you do before a pardon seems circular and absurd. dendodge 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: It would be helpful to have some cross-country correspondence addressed at the beginning of the article, as well as some mention of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK section. It is relevant to this article, even if the distinction is clear in the UK, because if you read the Canada section for example you will wonder whether a "pardon" in Canada (which the article notes has been renamed) is more akin to a "spent" conviction in the UK. It may also be important to note that in the UK "offence" and "crime" are (almost?) synonymous, whereas in Canada again, a large number of offences are in provincial law and are not crimes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.65.171 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (yet again) 

message: I find it difficult to accept that in South Africa, If you were sentenced for a year or maybe six months and get direct imprisonment for a common robbery, they give you a criminal record forever. The jobs are scarce, its even worse when you have a criminal record, you can't even get a security job. How are you going to survive then...If your life is like that you will always do wrong things over and over to survive because you know that you will never get a decent job. I am so disappointed about this.@simthelegendary@Gmail.com97 41.114.197.177 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expungement In South Africa 

message: — Assignment last updated by SPIAAZ (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe