The executive privilege of the presidential pardon was birthed out of benevolence. If one had fallen victim to systematic injustice, the pardon acted as a reprieve. The Constitution loosely states “The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment” (Jefferson). ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1 is especially vague in terms of the limitations on which it can be used for. Its only restrictions are: the pardons cannot affect the impeachment processes, and the pardon is not applicable on state and local crimes. Therefore, the pardon can only be utilized in a case against the United States (a federal crime). 

“The prerogative of mercy made its debut on the statutory rolls of the Anglo-Saxon monarchs during the reign of King Ine of Wessex (668-725 A.D.). Section 6 of the Laws provided: "If any one fight in the king's house, let him be liable in all his property, and be it in the king's doom whether he shall or shall not have life"'(Duker 2). The “mercy” which can be translated as a pardon has been a constant factor in Anglo-Saxon society. “The laws of Ine also placed the holding of a shire by any "ealdorman" who "takes a thief, or to whom one taken is given, and [who] lets him go, or conceals the theft" at the mercy of the sovereign. 0 Others who engaged in the forbidden activity were merely to pay for the thief according to his "wer," the value placed on his life.” (Duker 2). In its essence, if one had a convenient relationship to the crown, then said person could essentially evade punishment regardless of action. This presents the issue of one’s life having more weight than someone whom is less fortunate. This concept differed with the Founding Fathers idea of the presidential pardon, but in modern times plays a substantial role.

The Federalists, in particular Alexander Hamilton, conceived and defended the concept of a presidential pardon and its exclusive role assigned to the executive branch; He placed devote confidence in the fact that the pardon offered assurance "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion. There are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth."(Hamilton) In short, a pardon offers forgiveness in times of political and social distress that could potentially compromise the nation’s health. The tactic of forgiveness in social turmoil has been utilized since its conception. In 1794 the Whiskey Rebellion wreaked havoc on the nation in response to Hamilton’s tax “upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same.” (Hamilton) Two of the leaders of the rebellion were charged with treason, but subsequently were pardoned for their crimes in attempt to mend the nations wounds(Kotowski)

Similarly, in 1863 Lincoln issued the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction which forgave confederates (with exception to high ranking officials and officers) of treason. By doing so, it presented a route to mend the broken state. Like Hamilton suggested, the pardon has been an essential antibiotic that destroyed the bacteria of anger and mercilessness. Bringing America together has been an issue since its birth. Being human is to differ in thought and in sense of self. Being human is to believe, whether it be a higher power or a political idea or what one of us deem ethical: and because we as Americans support such freedoms it will be exercised.  We are going to differ in thought, which will lead to political polarization and anguish, and the pardon acts as not only s way to preserve justice, but one to preserve our great democracy.

Secondly, Hamilton believed a pardon serves as a lifeboat for those whom have been condemned to a punishment that is unjust and cruel in nature. Hamilton believed “Without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” (Hamilton). Mercy is critical to a functioning free society, making the pardon a crucial part of our constitution. For example, in 1977 President Carter pardoned draft dodgers from of the Vietnam war from treason, with knowledge their sentences were unjust and divisive. 

In modern times the pardon has come to resolved unjust punishment: for example, under the Obama Administration hundreds of low level drug dealer’s sentences were reduced or absolved because of the unjustifiable harshness of their punishment bestowed upon them by the courts and previous administrations.

Since the 1970s the pardon has lost its sense of benign power to the corrupt, selfish political system in place today. The pardon has been used to advance political agenda, protect assets useful or in contact with an administration, and to absolve a sinner from sins they have yet to pay repentance for. Moreover, the usage of pardons has lessened significantly over the course of the centuries. The pardon has become in itself a tool that can hurt the prospects of an administration, which relates to the drastic decrease in usage. Lincoln presented over 200 in his first year of presidency alone, compared to Bush’s who had administered the same amount in his eight years as president. Usually a mass majority of pardons are issued at the end of a president’s time in office, but the pardon should not be politicized, but rather be a correctional force that prevents benevolent citizens from falling through the cracks in our judicial system, falling victim to one of the hundreds of prisons in America today.

In regard to controversial pardons, many administrations have taken full advantage of the system. From Fords pardoning of Nixon to Bill Clintons pardon of Marc Rich, both sides of the isle have issued the simple statement to the people: the pardon is not what it used to be. For example, Marc Rich had previously worked as a hedge fund manager who had been indicted on multiple count of wire fraud, tax evasion, and racketeering. Pardoned by Bill Clinton, it had later been revealed Rich’s ex-wife had been a contributor to the Clintons Presidential Library. This misuse of power due to proximity and aid to an administration denounces the premise of the pardon. The pardon was designed to right the wrongs of the criminal system, to protect those in need of protection, not a reward for contributing the most to a campaign. This injustice demonstrates both sides of the political spectrum can illicit and facilitate conflicts with the pardons usage and ethicality.

Although there have been issues regarding the use of the presidential pardon, nothing differs from Hamilton’s vison more than the pardoning of Joe Arpaio.  Joe Arpaio, previously known as the “America’s Toughest Sherriff”, was pardoned on August 25, 2017 by President Donald J. Trump. 

“Joe Arpaio has emerged as the personification of today’s harsh and unrelenting culture of control. His national visibility is unusual for a county sheriff”, which can be attributed to his ridged and astringent methods toward law enforcement, such as “housing inmates in ‘‘Tent City,’’ a facility where inmates reside in outdoor tents rather than traditional jail cells; installing a jailcam that gave Internet users a live view of the daily life of inmates; requiring inmates to wear pink underwear; reinstituting chain gangs (for men and women); restricting inmate access to various comforts(pornography, coffee, R-rated movies, and so on); providing exceedingly low cost meals; and sanctioning crime-fighting citizen possess” (Maratea).

Continuously, guards have relentlessly abused inmates, resulting in injury and deaths. “Over 150 people have died inside the jail during Arpaio tenure”; resulting in “millions of dollars” (Maryia) in settlements to be paid to the families of the dead.

These issues, however, are not the cause for his crime. In the 2010 Senate Bill (SB) 1070 was enacted. This law “empowered law enforcement agents to turn a simple traffic stop into a deportation proceeding, and routinely seeing federal ICE agents working with local police inside the jails” (Mariya). This law, however, was deemed unconstitutional and was therefore not protected. In utter disregard for the law, Joe Arpaio continued to detain people because of suspicion. According to an Azcentral article (a local news company), [Arpaio] “quotes [were] cited more than 20 times in a federal judge's ruling that found him guilty of criminal contempt of court.” Despite Arpaios position, he “broadcast to the world and to his subordinates that he would and they should continue ‘what he had always been doing.’” (Cassidy). Arpaio was said to face up to six months in prison after he was sentenced, which was scheduled for October 5, 2017.

 In a rally, before he was even sentenced, Donald Trump alluded to a potential pardon. “Do the people in this room like Sheriff Joe?” Trump said. “So, was Sheriff Joe convicted for doing his job? … I’ll make a prediction: I think he’s going to be just fine.” In a matter of weeks, Joe Arpaio was pardoned. 

Arpaio has also been a strong advocate for Donald Trump since he announced he was to campaign for president in 2015. He had given validity to Trump, and even invented “Trumpism” before Trump himself(Lind). Like Trump, Arpaio had used flamboyant stunts to gain the media’s attention. They both utilized the tactic of “Gonzo rhetoric, which is a framing strategy comprised of five elements that adhered to the reporting logic of media organizations and position extremely harsh social control measures as the appropriate means for reclaiming the moral order” ( Maratea). The issue with this rhetorical strategy, but rather benefit to these two men, is that it “results in coverage that tends to lack critical assessment and often provides tacit—and sometimes overt—media validation of ‘‘get tough’’ crime control strategies” (Maratea).

Contentiously, Trump, a man who has historically praised loyalty, has given White House positions to those who have supported his at times radical methodology. He gifts those who withhold a convenient relationship with himself. But it bares the question if Trump prefers loyalty or an underlying unquestionable praise that resembles tyranny. It bares the question if it is now okay to act as a king from the past, rather than the leader of a modern republic. Of a City upon a Hill.  

The recent polarization in our country and our new leadership has lead America into a crisis. It has allowed acceptance of white supremacy, antisemitism, and persecution of minorities to persist, and even be encouraged. Rallies encouraging racist values have surged, avulsing the nation. Intolerance has plagued the nation, and its disease is spreading. The symptoms have become more and more apparent. No better representation than this is the pardoning of Joe Arpaio. Arpaio lead nothing short but a war on immigration that was illegal and led him into contempt of court, causing him to break the very laws he was supposed to protected. His treatment of inmates can be argued to have violated basic humanitarian rights, which leads many to think: why was Joe Arpaio pardoned? How does pardoning a man who has such little regard for human decency improve Donald Trump’s image and his right winged administration? What consequences could result from the president supporting Arpaio?

The pardon is damaging for several reasons: One, it sends a message the United States and its justice systems are accepting of racial profiling. Trump states Arpaio was just “doing his job” but in fact he was disregarding the law and encouraging other law enforcement agents to do so as well. In a time of divisiveness between minorities and the police, the administration is encouraging physiognomy which should be neutralized in law and order. The law is supposed to be blind, so why can’t America’s law enforcement be?

Trump stated in his official pardoning address that “Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.” Being old in age and serving a nation is not worth a pardon if said candidate was racially oppressive. Would we pardon Hitler because he was older and because he served is country? No, because Hitler’s actions were egregious and dishonorable, just like Arpaio. Service does not define character. They are both mutually exclusive. Arpaio’s job was to protect and serve, and by not following the law, he put himself on the same level as the inmates he jailed and tortured. 

The second most damning issue of Trumps recent pardon is that it feeds into the nations divide. Instead of attempting to bring America together as a united front, he tears deeper into the nations wounds. Hamilton and the Founding Fathers clearly thought the pardon served as a conduit to facilitate tranquility, and now it has been contorted to fit the demands of the administration. The Constitution is being deconstructed for the use of the few in power, not for the greater good of the whole. The fate of America rests in the president’s hands, at least for now, and he needs to be held accountable for all the strife his own administration is responsible for, and that includes the issue of this pardon itself and what it represents.

How can we as a nation prevent the few from ruling from twisting a creation birthed from benevolence into a being that is entirely opposite. It has been presented by the Founding Fathers that the power of the pardon could be given to the legislature, but that would give congress too much power. Moreover, it would take too much time for congress to agree, which would vastly limit the already shrinking number of pardons given per year. It has been presented by some that the pardon could be granted to the Vice President, which would present more than one duty to that office, along with check some of the Presidents power (Larkin). If Vice President Mike Pence were to be in charge of the pardoning in this administration, it is highly doubtful Arpaio would be pardoned. Mike Pence represents the aged Republican ideals, the old Republican party. He conforms to the thought of civil politics, what is best for the nation as a whole, rather than appeasing one side and widening an already polarized nation.

If the pardon is being utilized on a person who was “loyal” what could become of it if more of Trumps “friends” fall to the fate of the courts? It is apparent the pardon is not being used on unjust criminal sentencing or the mending of the nation, so what is it being used on now?

The recent usage of the pardoning of Joe Arpaio is not only accepting the usage of racial profiling, but can be portrayed as a war on the minorities. A war that will not only sustain the divide in America, but feed it. This pardon contorts the Founding Fathers constitutional words for the benefit of the few, the benefit of those who have the highest “wers” in accordance to the president. 
