<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p> Presidential pardon has always existed in criminal law and continues to constitute a very important competence of the head of state in many modern day countries. In the past, the clemency given by the sovereign (usually the king/queen or the emperor/empress) represented an act which showed his/her mercy upon their subjects. It was often used as a tool to show the arbitrary will of the sovereign that constituted the law, rather than the law itself. Therefore, the classical school of criminal law that appeared in the 18th century and emphasized the importance of the principle of legality, opposed harshly every kind of arbitrary deciding that excluded the law at the interest of the sovereign. This school is among the only interpretations of criminal law that engages for a complete abandonment of institutes such as pardon or amnesty. The revolutionary French Penal Code of 1791, which was strongly influenced by the classical school, excluded clemency for the proved wrongs that were severely punished. However, due to imperfections of the criminal justice system, amnesty (given by the parliament) and pardon or clemency (given by the head of the state), continue to exist and to be used in modern day criminal law. They are no longer considered acts of arbitrary decisions of the sovereign, instead they should represent important instruments of criminal law, used rarely and wisely with specifically designed goals that aim to bring justice rather than deny it. However, there are many cases when these institutes have been inappropriately used in a very arrogant way which shows that the ancient regime is not yet over for some countries in which the highest institutions continue to act as old and middle age despots. This article will analyze the legal reasoning of the institution of presidential pardon. It will try to establish why the classical school was so strictly opposed to this institute making use of the studies and interpretations found in the writings of Cesare Beccaria. It will explain the philosophy of modern day institutions of amnesty and pardon and the way in which they are regulated in the legal theory and practice. The article will explain the recent developments in Macedonia in regard to the use of presidential pardon. The methods to be used consist of desk research, historical and comparative methods and analysis of legal texts, laws and judicial decisions.</p></abstract>

Presidential pardon has always existed in criminal law and continues to constitute a very important competence of the head of state in many modern day countries. In the past, the clemency given by the sovereign (usually the king/queen or the emperor/empress) represented an act which showed his/her mercy upon their subjects. It was often used as a tool to show the arbitrary will of the sovereign that constituted the law, rather than the law itself. Therefore, the classical school of criminal law that appeared in the 18th century and emphasized the importance of the principle of legality, opposed harshly every kind of arbitrary deciding that excluded the law at the interest of the sovereign. This school is among the only interpretations of criminal law that engages for a complete abandonment of institutes such as pardon or amnesty. The revolutionary French Penal Code of 1791, which was strongly influenced by the classical school, excluded clemency for the proved wrongs that were severely punished. However, due to imperfections of the criminal justice system, amnesty (given by the parliament) and pardon or clemency (given by the head of the state), continue to exist and to be used in modern day criminal law. They are no longer considered acts of arbitrary decisions of the sovereign, instead they should represent important instruments of criminal law, used rarely and wisely with specifically designed goals that aim to bring justice rather than deny it. However, there are many cases when these institutes have been inappropriately used in a very arrogant way which shows that the ancient regime is not yet over for some countries in which the highest institutions continue to act as old and middle age despots. This article will analyze the legal reasoning of the institution of presidential pardon. It will try to establish why the classical school was so strictly opposed to this institute making use of the studies and interpretations found in the writings of Cesare Beccaria. It will explain the philosophy of modern day institutions of amnesty and pardon and the way in which they are regulated in the legal theory and practice. The article will explain the recent developments in Macedonia in regard to the use of presidential pardon. The methods to be used consist of desk research, historical and comparative methods and analysis of legal texts, laws and judicial decisions.

THE LEGAL REASONING OF THE PRESIDENT’S RIGHT TO ISSUE PARDONS

SEEU Review

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

{"article-title":"THE LEGAL REASONING OF THE PRESIDENT\u2019S RIGHT TO ISSUE PARDONS"}

Presidential pardon has always existed in criminal law and continues to constitute a very important competence of the head of state in many modern day...

THE LEGAL REASONING OF THE PRESIDENT’S RIGHT TO ISSUE PARDONS

Publié en ligne: 11 mai 2018

Pages: 32 - 61

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/seeur-2017-0017

© South East European University

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.