| updated weekly |
home - contribute - donate - message board - events - links - contact us - archive |
| December 28, 2006 Editor’s Desk by Aaron Selbig, insurgent49 Pardon the Injustice
Ford, Murkowski Prove that Pardoning Power Needs Review  How and when should the power to pardon (“to
release a person from liability for an offense”, according to
Webster’s) be used by our leaders?The debate over this issue has been re-ignited by the recent passing of former President Gerald Ford, perhaps the most famous pardoner in American history. In 1974, President Ford pardoned former President Richard Nixon for any and all crimes committed during the Watergate scandal, touching off nationwide outrage that probably cost him a close election in 1976. Was his reasoning valid? Was it necessary, as he later argued, to “put this national nightmare behind us” so that the country could move on? Or was he enabling future presidents to commit similar crimes without fear of punishment? Coincidentally, we have recently come face to face with the issue of controversial pardons here in Alaska. Shortly before leaving office, former Governor Frank Murkowski issued a pardon to the Whitewater Engineering Corporation, which had been found guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the death of one of their employees. The man, Gary Stone, was tragically killed in an avalanche at a Whitewater job site outside of Cordova. Although it may seem on the surface that Gary Stone’s death was, as Governor Murkowski put it, “a tragic accident caused by a snow avalanche in Alaska’s harsh climate”, the truth is that the company and its owner, Thom Fischer, failed to follow mandatory safety procedures required by the state. Fischer ignored warnings from his employees and his own avalanche expert that the danger at the job site was high and, according to the state, exhibited gross negligence by not putting the required safety procedures in place. Thom Fischer and Whitewater Engineering cut corners to save money and, as a result, one of their employees, a father with five children, died. They were prosecuted by the state, found guilty in a court of law, and were forced to pay fines and restitution in excess of $150,000. One could question whether the $17,000 that Whitewater was ordered to pay the Stone family was truly just compensation. Also, this case could certainly be used as an example of why the legal concept of “corporate personhood” is deeply flawed. But, at least as far as the conviction for negligent homicide, justice was served. That should be it, right? Case closed. Thanks to a gubernatorial pardon from Frank Murkowski, however, Whitewater Engineering Corp. is free to operate in Alaska with impunity again, and free to continue endangering their employees. To add insult to injury, Murkowski didn’t even bother to tell the family of Gary Stone. They found out what had happened from an Anchorage Daily News reporter. Imagine that, for a moment. This single cruel, reprehensible act on the part of Frank Murkowski further illustrates the need to review the power of the pardon. Although some pardons are made with the undoing of injustice and/or healing of society in mind (President Carter’s pardoning of Vietnam War era draft evaders, for instance), the vast majority of them seem to benefit friends, family or cronies of the pardoner. Does the power to pardon need to be reigned in by checks and balances, via overview from a court or legislative body? Do leaders need to have some parameters on whom they can pardon and for what crimes? Or should the power to pardon be abandoned altogether, cast away to the scrap heap of outdated ideas? At the very least, it’s time to talk about it. Aaron Selbig is an activist and media junkie who resides in an undisclosed location in downtown Anchorage. He is the winner of a 2006 Alaska Press Club award for Best Editorial Writing, host of KUDO 1080 AM's 'The Aaron Selbig Show' and a co-founder of Insurgent49. Aaron may be contacted at editor@insurgent49.com 'Editor's Desk' appears on insurgent49.com every Thursday. |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
December 21, 2006 December 14, 2006 December 7, 2006 November 30, 2006 November 23, 2006 November 10, 2006 November 3, 2006 October 27, 2006 October 13, 2006 October 6, 2006 September 29, 2006 September 22, 2006 September 15, 2006 September 8, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 25, 2006 August 18, 2006 August 11, 2006 August 4, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 9, 2006 June 2, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 5, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 7, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2006 March 3, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 |
||||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media.
All rights reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
|||||||||
