constitutional-law legal-history pardon
What is the purpose of pardoning powers?
<p>Various countries have pardoning powers given to either the president or the governor, this is secured as a constitutional right of the president and governor.<br />
What is the purpose of such powers? Is there a special reason why are they handed to a president or governor?</p>

<h2>They are the modern legacy of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_of_mercy" rel="noreferrer">Royal prerogative of mercy</a></h2>
<p>Or in Commonwealth countries that still have a monarch, it <em>is</em> the Royal prerogative of mercy.</p>
<p>Its modern functional purpose is to provide <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2012/September/Justice_beyond_law_clemency_and_the_Royal_Prerogative_of_Mercy" rel="noreferrer">justice beyond the law</a>. Its historical purpose was to allow the monarch to commute automatic death sentences in a legal system that did not, at that time, have an appeals process to correct miscarriages of justice, either through mistake or in a system that was not as flexible as it is today.</p>
<p>It exists as the ultimate backstop against injustice. Ultimately, exercise of the power is a political rather than a judicial one and, as such, any limits on misuse come through the ballot box, not the court.</p>

<p>The purpose was to place in an individual person, independent from the judiciary, the power and individual agency to provide mercy for outcomes that have resulted in &quot;unfortunate guilt.&quot; See generally, &quot;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013317/#ALDF_00022720" rel="noreferrer">The Constitution Annotated</a>&quot;, and <a href="https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493466" rel="noreferrer">Federalist 74</a>.</p>
<p>The US framers did not place the power in an individual simply for the reason that the &quot;King is a single person.&quot; They did not inconsiderately replicate the U.K. approach. There was debate about whether the pardon power would be a step on path back to monarchy. There was debate about whether to include the legislature in the pardon power.</p>
<p>For one rationale for placing the power in an individual, see Federalist 74:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Under the rule of law, laws must not be retroactive and they should not be too specific. But sometimes, justice requires <em>not</em> applying the existing law in a specific case. By giving the power of pardon to the executive, and not the legislative or judiciary, there is no suggestion that a pardon creates a new law or judiciary precedent. It stands aside.</p>
