In a lot of pardoned or commuted sentences, it can come down to someone who had the book thrown at them over something relatively minor, and they have served a large portion of their sentences. Or, if conviction is dodgy.

Sometimes it comes down to if the person has well and truly changed their ways. And usually, the person asking for the pardon doesn't have any other legal problems unresolved.

Like if someone got caught with a couple ounces of marijuana, and the judge wanted to make an example of them, and gave them 57 years. And they've done 15, and marijuana is now legal in that state.

Or maybe someone was in a car, and the driver pulled a gun and shot someone, and they got charged with murder because they were an accessory because they were present.

I can come up with tons of scenarios, but typically, the commutation or pardoning of a sentence isn't taken lightly and a lot of evidence is presented as to why the person should be let go. But with trump, he's a dead brained fuck and someone probably gave him $500 bucks and told him this guy would give him lots of money if he got out.

The system of pardoning isn't really the issue at hand, it was the person issuing the pardon that was the problem.

Here's the theory: a justice system can never be perfect, especially when implemented on a large scale. There will always be legal outcomes that are fundamentally unjust. Efforts should be made to minimize such outcomes , but they will never be eliminated.

Presidential pardons are essentially a way to override the entire justice system in specific cases. With the understanding that even if all actors had good intent and we're acting rationally the system would still result in unjust convictions, the power to recognize such injustice and summarily fix it is granted to the highest office in the land essentially with no oversight.

In a healthy democratic environment, it's still an imperfect idea, but it sort of works. When the president wouldn't dare use it to pardon his cronies or pardon obviously guilty people who did horrible things without remorse, then it mostly works. When the backlash for misusing the pardon power is being democratically crushed, then and only then it makes some sense.

I'm not saying it's a perfect idea. Whether the presidential pardon power should exist is debatable at the best of times, and I could come up with counter arguments to everything I said above.

The real problem is this isn't a healthy democratic environment. There's a cult of personality around one man. He used pardon power to pardon his cronies, and a slew of utter dirtbags, and nobody who voted for him cares . He lost zero votes for that. The problem with pardons is just one of the avenues of rot caused by that phenomenon.