Free, free, set them free!
We have
already discussed this issue once in class, but now it has become relevant to
the Slovak context. Is having a
presidential pardon a good thing, or should it be entirely up to the justice
system whether prisoners get released?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of releasing prisoners
early? Should it be considered one
possible solution to prison over-crowding?
Should it be done at once or only gradually? Do you agree with which types of prisoners were chosen for this
pardon?
As much as this might seem disrespectful towards the prisoner, I don’t believe that a mass amnesty is an appropriate way of celebrating an anniversary of independence. It seems like a hastily and irresponsibly planned action and can result in undesirable events. I fail to see the reason why criminals should get a “get out of jail free card” just because of an anniversary of Slovakia’s independence. Some of these criminals barely served any time, which is why I believe that some of them might begin to think that they are untouchable and that their actions won’t have consequences, in other words; they might attempt their criminal offenses again.
ReplyDeleteAlthough certain limits and conditions were established in order to control what types of criminals would be set free, I still think that if a person was tried, proven guilty and incarcerated, then he deserves to serve full time unless he shows some kind of remorse. Nevertheless, I have to mention that some criminals do in fact deserve to be set free, as their offenses were minimal or that their motives we desperate.
Prisoner pardons by the president have been a widely discussed issue nowadays in Slovakia. There already have been numbers of pardons by various Slovak presidents. After all, the governing president has the right of prison pardon granted by constitution. I share Andrews’s opinion on the dissatisfaction of pardons being connected with the celebration of the Slovak nation. It is more of a celebration for the prisoners being released, than for the non-guilty citizens of Slovakia. However, I don’t necessarily disagree with the release of some prisoners.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, giving president pardons to prisoners that are guilty of minor crimes, have health problems, or are crippled and old is legit. Of course, it is a bit unfair since the prisoners have committed a crime, should be punished for their actions. The punishment should teach people with a criminal history higher moral values and appreciation of the things they have, their family and friends. The negative effects of prison release were the second crimes of some prisoners after freeing them. This indicates that the former prisoners were not aware of the possible consequences of their actions, which I believe would not happen after facing his/her sentence in prison.
However, the issue of prison capacity should be considered as well. I think that the primary reason of the president action is the low capacity for new prisoners that are guilty of worse crimes, since prisons in the Slovak republic are more than full. It is also true that the country pays large amounts money to prisons so that prisoners get food, have a place to sleep and what to wear. By releasing prisons the economic system may slightly increase. Furthermore, I think that Ivan Gasparovic’s prison pardons were not big, and didn’t have a significant role in Slovakia, unlike the Czech president’s pardon that definitely should have been decreased mainly because of the release of prisoners guilty of corruption and fraud.
I see no logic what so ever behind the idea of freeing prisoners to celebrate an anniversary. The entire justice system and idea of holding dangerous people away from other people is a service this country provides to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. Frankly, I see the idea of celebrating an anniversary by freeing convicts equivalent to the president saying “Hey, we have an anniversary coming up! Why don’t we shut down all the hospitals for a few weeks to celebrate it!” Hospitals too are a service this country provides us with and is aimed to ensure our safety and well-being. So what is the difference?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are certain limitations as to which convict can be pardoned and which cannot, but I still find the whole idea wrong. I do not see it as a way of celebrating, as much as a way of showing the incredible flaws in our justice system. Knowing that prisoners can be pardoned like this changes general rules. “You shall not commit crime!” changes to “You shall not commit crime! Unless of course there is an anniversary coming up or the president has any other reason to celebrate, in which case you may do whatever you want, because you will be pardoned anyway”.
This is what I believe the flaw is. How do we, at the next anniversary, distinguish between the convicts that simply used the opportunity to commit crime, knowing that they will be pardoned, from the ones that genuinely wanted to commit crime? And even if we could distinguish between them, which group do we pardon?