• atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    And those people would still face state charges because that’s how that works. You can’t get a presidential pardon for state crimes.

    • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Can you face state charges for murder if you’re already facing federal charges for the same killing (you crossed state lines)? That sounds like double jeopardy to me.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yes. You can face state and federal charges separately. Double jeopardy is when they charge for the same crime twice in the same court (state or federal), after you’ve either been convicted or been acquitted.

        Specifically they would have to have new evidence in order to charge you a second time in either federal or state court.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is responsible for processing all local criminal matters including felony, misdemeanor, District of Columbia code violations and criminal traffic cases.

    • Muehe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Ok yeah fair enough, that sounds reasonable. But to my knowledge the UMCJ is a federal law, not a state law, so how does that line of argument factor in there? You cited that as an example of checks and balances that would prevent people from following illegal orders, but it being a federal law still means the president could circumvent it with the official order plus pardon combo, at least if my understanding of this new supreme court ruling is correct.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Because (just like in NY with Trump, and specific charges) if a crime is committed within a state the state has the right to prosecute regardless of impeachment or federal charges. The UCMJ is technically federal law. But we’re looking at three different aspects of lawful charges for persons who might commit a crime per the Presidents order. The president could absolutely pardon the persons involved. But only at the federal level. There’s nothing stopping the state or states from prosecuting the same individual. It’s not just one set of checks and balances is my point. The department of justice can also bring charges regardless of UCMJ tribunal (Court Material). Which is really where double jeopardy should kick in but doesn’t for service members.

        Additionally and most importantly actually, a court martial conviction for murder would result in a dishonorable discharge from the military. That can’t be overturned by a presidential pardon. They would lose their benefits. Medical and so on. Pensions. It’s a cost benefit analysis at that point. They don’t just get to walk away no harm no foul cause presidential pardon.

        • Muehe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          All good points if true. However I will say that to my limited understanding a crime under a specific law having been pardoned, that same law can then not be used to prosecute this crime anymore. Meaning states would have to find a different (preferably state) law under which the same offence is punishable.

          And that is all disregarding other issues like packed courts, republican controlled states, the vagueness of double-jeopardy in this regard, and the general chilling effect a presidential pardon would have on prosecutors to even press charges in the first place.

          The loss of benefits is easily circumvented by promising a golden parachute along with the pardon, so I could still see a lot of fanatics doing the crime “for country and freedom” or whatever they tell themselves.

          Overall this seems like a potentially dangerous erosion of checks and balances that is easily abused when put in the wrong hands. As the dissenting opinions in the ruling openly state.

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t disagree with that in the grand scheme of things. But a presidential pardon can only be accepted under the understanding that the person who receives it is admitting by accepting it that they committed the crime. As such a service member with a dishonorable discharge would not have their benefits re-instated, for instance.

            • Muehe@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah but like I said, if you promise some other form of compensation on the level or above what they lose in benefits, you will still find people willing to follow these illegal orders. Hell you could find people willing to follow illegal orders even before this ruling, but now that the presidents right to give illegal orders is explicitly enshrined in constitutional jurisprudence this pre-existing problem is much worse. I doubt those people will care about a dishonourable discharge, on the contrary it will make them martyrs to “the cause” and they will be worshipped for it. And it remains to be seen how all this would play out in court, I guess it’s quite possible for the defence to argue that if the president has immunity for giving orders, their subordinates have immunity for following those orders.

              • atrielienz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                At the point where you are offered some other form of compensation, I believe that would be considered a bribe, which is also illegal.

                • Muehe@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  That it was offered is nigh impossible to prove if the offer is only made verbally though. And conversely, if they make the offer an “official act” they are immune again.