The underlying issue is that while legally speaking "pardon" has a different definition...
In a practical sense (in terms of societal impact/risk), is this any different that when prosecutors decline to file charges in a case where they'd have the evidence to do so? -- or opts to recommend cashless bail to a judge and puts a person back out on the streets?
For example:
Let's say I committed arson.
Prosecutor files charges, I'm convicted, but a Governor pardon's me a little later, and I'm back out on the streets and end up causing more trouble...
vs.
Prosecutor declines to file charges at all, or files them, but recommends no-cash bail and a judge releases me back on the streets (and I cause more trouble)
Is there a huge difference in terms of practical impact with that?
For some reason people seem to have a more visceral "This is a travesty! I demand justice and law & order!" for the former, but don't seem to have that same reaction to the latter.
I've shared on here before that I go both ways on the topic of pardons.
Part of me says "Pardon power shouldn't exist because they're far too often used as a form of favoritism"
But then the other part of me says "...but it's practically the only cross-branch check that exists on the Judicial branch, and no branch of government should be unchecked"
And while I'm not a fan of the way pardons/commutations have been used by the executive branch over these past 3 decades...
It's hard to single out presidents and governors for giving "favorable special treatment" to criminals when the country is littered with prosecutors and judges who are basically accomplishing the same thing, just at an earlier phase of the criminal justice process.
To put the numbers in context:
There's been something in the neighborhood of 4,000 presidential pardons between 1992 and present day.
Meanwhile, prosecutors routinely decline to file charges in 20% of cases for reasons of "discretion",
and each year millions are released on "cashless bail". 5-10% of which re-offend between the time of release and trial.
When looked at through that lens, prosecutors and judges (collectively) are responsible for putting more dangerous people back on the streets than any one US president in the last 3 decades.
