Scooter Libby Part II
July 16, 2007
President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence so that he will not have to serve time for lying to federal authorities about the Valerie Plame-CIA leak. (See the March 12, 2007 entry) The reaction to his decision was once again very controversial.
Alan Dershowitz says that pardons are part of the political process and not the judicial process. However he believes that the U.S Court of Appeals denial of Libby bail pending appeal was a political decision that judges are not allowed to make. That, according to Dershowitz justified the President's decision.
There is no doubt that politics influence the judicial process. The best example of such influence is the Supreme Court decision that gave President Bush the presidency. Whether it was justified or not, it seems to me that members of the Court voted according their political philosophy, not on the principle of the law.
Those that were opposed to the clemency believe that the presidential decision was interference in the normal judicial process.
Presidential clemency is not new. There have been more than 27,000 acts of presidential clemency since George Washington. Franklin D. Roosevelt has the all-time record of 3, 687 pardons, while President James Garfield pardoned none!
Presidential pardons or sentence commuting is problematic because it violates fairness. If you pardon one, why not pardon all?
However, fairness also implies that the same punishment be applied to all. In this case, it is hard to believe that Scooter Libby was the only party responsible, so why should he alone suffer the consequences and further punishment. (He did loose his job and most likely his career and had to pay a heavy fine.)
Rushworth Kidder, the founder and president of the Institute of Global Ethics says that our toughest ethical dilemmas arise when we face two strong moral arguments. In this case, I think we are facing three fundamental values: justice, fairness and mercy.
When in doubt I would advocate that we err on the side of mercy. After all, we are all fallible. Who can tell if in the future, we may wish, others would exercise mercy on our behalf?
As Abraham Lincoln once said:
"I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice."
Comments (2)
July 17, 2007 5:40 PM, Posted by David Purdy
I agree that when the issues are unclear we should choose mercy. However, mercy available only to the well-connected is a threat to a civil society.
Moreover, Mr. Libby was found by a jury of his peers to have lied about his effort to punish the President's political enemy. The President himself agrees that the lie itself was an offense.
What if the President was complicit in the underlying offense? Clearly mercy doled out by someone with something to gain is in itself a self-serving and highly unethical act.
July 17, 2007 8:15 PM, Posted by Emmanuel
David,
I think that we agree on the essential, meaning that when in doubt we should choose mercy. The fact, if it's true, that only the well-connected receive mercy is an indication that our legal system is flawed and that we have social injustice. It is true that an alleged perpetrator has a much better chance of being acquitted if he or she has financial means to hire a prominent attorney.
You ask "What if the President was complicit?" We do not know that. "What if" is a supposition while jail time is a reality.