WMN: t3_35007e_t1_cqzsea5

[TITLE]

CMV: Democracies should not prosecute ex-leaders for crimes in office.

[huadpe]

**Edit:** View [partly changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/35007e/cmv_democracies_should_not_prosecute_exleaders/cqzpsh4) by /u/Tricerabear in respect to mature democracies since most/all would have their militaries defy orders from an illegitimate President. So I am thinking about this a bit in the US context, such as Ford's pardon of Nixon, and Obama's decision not to prosecute Bush or Cheney for torture. But I am certainly open to non-American examples as well. The threat of prosecution undermines peaceful transition of power. Peaceful transition of power between political adversaries is the defining feature of a democracy governed by the rule of law. If you do not peacefully transition power, you're not a democracy. The threat of prosecution is deeply corrosive to the willingness of leaders to give up power. If the opposition makes clear they intend to imprison you upon their victory, you are not likely to hand over the reins of power to them. Even for a leader engaged in open criminality like Nixon, we should be willing to offer a plea of no prosecution in exchange for surrendering the power of office. It is more important that the office transfer peacefully and within the confines of the law than it is that a particular person be put in prison. Egypt's recent history is indicative of this to me. The prosecutions of Mubarak, then Morsi, then undoing Mubarak have made it wildly implausible that any leader who takes power in Egypt again would hand over office willingly, since your opposition will drag you off to prison for some charge, legitimate or no. **TL;DR: Peaceful transition of power is more important than achieving retribution for crimes.** _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Ganondorf-Dragmire]

If government in the USA is done as intended in the constitution, which it isn't, those government officials who actually break the law and deserve to go to jail are prosecuted while in office and given the proper punishment.

[live9free1or1die]

[STA-CITE]> The threat of prosecution undermines peaceful transition of power. Peaceful transition of power between political adversaries is the defining feature of a democracy governed by the rule of law. If you do not peacefully transition power, you're not a democracy. ... If the opposition makes clear they intend to imprison you upon their victory, you are not likely to hand over the reins of power to them. [END-CITE]Just for the record The United States has never been, or intended to be, a democracy. But to take on your point (on your chosen premise) the transition of power is largely based on the precedents known to the current generation. Much like in court cases, the expectations and historical trends in our culture dictate the results in the present. The government itself, as well as the populace at large, innately/openly demands change of leadership. There are only negative repercussions to be had to not demand new leadership, or so would say the majority of Americans. This is our cultural norm - The US does not in any way equate to Egypt, and it never will. Which brings me to my second point. Even if you call what I wrote above completely batshit nuts and patently false it still doesn't tackle this major moral issue: the lack of functionality and transition of power in your precious society doesn't justify completely excusing the horrible behavior of our leaders. Excused corruption begets more corruption, excused immorality begets more immorality. If the next president knows he can get away with torture, he'll be running around torturing people in no time because why the hell not?? People commit all kinds of crimes when they know they're never going to spend a day in jail and while this may be a fine stopping place for you personally, I could never let the evil I find in the world run so wild. Interesting view you have though, nice cmv.

[Bowbreaker]

All the problems you mentioned can be fixed by not giving the next holder of office the power to unilaterally decide if his predecessor should be prosecuted or not. In fact I'd call it a disservice to democracy that a president can chose *not* to prosecute a criminal former president as that gives precedence to the notion that presidents can do pretty much whatever they want, the biggest risk being that they lose their job.

[huadpe]

Where should we vest the power then, if not the executive? I'm only familiar with common law systems (US/Canada/UK) where the power of prosecution lies with an executive agency.

[mormotomyia]

[STA-CITE]>Peaceful transition of power between political adversaries is the defining feature of a democracy governed by the rule of law. If you do not peacefully transition power, you're not a democracy. [END-CITE]While this is true you need to see implications made by you. You are talking about 'the president' but to generalize your point: you are saying 'no person holding a political office' should be prosecuted, if you dont support this statement your idea is violationg the very pinciple on that every state that is based on the rule of law was founded. This seems utterly ridiculous. No citizen in my country (Germany) would ever agree on exempting about 2060 mayors and many more 'leaders' of countys and states from the law they have to represent. Lets get into some detail about what the President is: he is the head of the executive branch of a democratic **Republic**. It is important to note that the concepts of republic and state of law or Rechtsstaat in german imply that the law is above the people is some sense and everyone has to play by the rules. The executive branch is the branch executing the law. Now think of it as hypocritical that a branch disrespecting the law is in charge of the law with regard to others. This does not make sense to me. When you are the one executing the rules, you should be playing by the rules yourself. I think it is important to note that we might differ in what we view as important in a democratic state. You rate peaceful transition over accountability. I dont. People granted the legitimation by the people they have to represent must be held accountable for every offense that would be an offense if commited by any of said legitimators. Otherwise I dont see a point in having a representative. I want someone who works and behaves by the same values and norms that I view as fundamental to my- and his or her- nation and state. If getting elected means you dont have to face consequenses for your actions regardless what those are the whole purpose of getting people into office to execute the law in a direct and fair manner is void. While I agree that a peacefull transition is important for a working democracy I think that showing accountability is more valuable. I dont know about the voting rates in the US. The last time they were around 50%. This means that people dont give a shit about politics. If we took the step and proposed that everyone in office would be held accountable for every offense while in charge ( and before obv.) I think politics would be more appealing to those of us who play by the rules and are pissed of by the government that can do seemingly everything without getting to face cosequenses for their actions. The example of Egypt is not so great in my opinion because the real power lies in the military the entire time. At no point in time the military lost power over the nation.( due to US funds, thanks Obama, thanks Bush, thanks Clinton, thanks another Bush.) So its not that big of a deal to convict and punish "leaders" who are more like puppets. If a nation wants to preserve its national integrety it has to show that it honors its own rules. And the people standing for that nation are the leaders. If people had free reign over what is right and what is wrong other nations would question the ability to act purposefully and responsible in international affairs. If your own laws dont mean anything to your international treatys might not too.

[oversoul00]

I think it depends on the perceived abuses of power. The higher up the chain you go the more likely you are to make gross errors because there are less people in your way. Somewhere between power corrupting and being unwieldy. So I agree with you if you are saying leaders should not be prosecuted for questionable decisions (Clinton's infidelity) but I disagree if you think leaders should not be prosecuted for abuses of power which include violating human rights for example. Saddam Hussein reportedly drove around in a rape van picking up attractive girls he saw on the street. That is a gross abuse of power and should be prosecuted (might have been, not sure about his trial). Gaddafi reportedly did similar things, Hitler enacted genocide etc.

[auandi]

When Nixon left, he left peacefully and with no promise of a pardon. You underestimate how ingrained peaceful transition of power is in functioning democracies. 50% of the living governors of Illinois served jail time for corruption related indictments they committed while in office. Yet, has there *ever* been even a *hint* of a threat that when the Republican won last November that the incumbent Democrat might not hand over power? Of course not! The 2000 presidential race was the most contentious in the modern era. Do you know the maximum extent of friction that happened when Clinton handed control to the other party? Some of the staff went around and removed the "W" keys from various office keyboards. That is the sum total of disorderliness that came out of that contentious election. Yes, a peaceful transition is the most important thing in a democracy, but granting full and unconditional immunity is not a part of that. Nixon left peacefully, and he did not have a pardon when he left. In fact the investigation continued for another month before President Ford decided to end it. There is no threat from inditing former heads of state, there is a threat from granting a pardon however. After Nixon, the power of the Executive has grown dramatically. And it has grown the way it has because there is now an assumption that there is no consequences. Reagan, while running against Ford, actively used backchannels with Iran to tell them not to release the hostages until after Carter left office. He then later, in defiance of direct orders from Congress, sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund fascist rebel groups who were into cocaine and raping nuns. Bush 43 instituted a purge of the Justice Department, firing nearly 40% of prosecutors based on their ideological beliefs. Not to mention the growing unilateral nature of the various presidents' use of force, across party lines. This is what happens when no one of high importance is held legally responsible for their actions. That is a far bigger threat to our democracies than any worry that they might not respect the results of an election.

[MontiBurns]

What do you mean by leaders? Is this limited to the heads of state, or can governors and mayors also be excempt? I can think of two very relevant, immediate examples of why immunity for ex leaders would be a bad idea. [ Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi) was a horribly corrupt politician who dominated italian politics because of his control of the media. he was eventually convicted of tax fraud. I was gonna just mention Illinois Governor [Rob Blagojevich](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich), but then I was reminded that [4 of the last 7 Illinois governors are now in prison.](http://news.yahoo.com/4-illinois-last-7-governors-went-prison-001500522.html)

[huadpe]

I was thinking of top level executive leaders of the type who could become dictators. Subnational leaders aren't really a consideration in that regard. I hadn't though of Berlusconi. But that's a good point and I will give you a delta for that example. Italy doesn't seem to have had a problem due to that prosecution, apart from embarrassment at the boinga boinga. ∆

[Raintee97]

No one is above the law. If a president commits a crime he should be given the consequences of that behavior. If we let presidents off scot free why won't this simply provide an incentive for people to see a position of power and then use that position for as much person gain laws be dammed. Since there is an incentive to commit crimes while in office it seems like you're trading one problem for another.

[thekarateguy]

Sooooo, you want a monarchy instead? Dude, if a nation's leader is not responsible for crimes they commit in office then that nation is not a true democracy.

[sunburnd]

Firstly it is not retribution for crimes. It is justice for the persons affected by those crimes. A person who is in a position of power needs to be held accountable for the abuses of that power especially when those abuses are visited upon victims in the name of the people who are represented by that politician. A peaceful transition of power is not worth the cost of allowing a person to abridge the rights of others. What is the point of having elected officials that ultimately are in place to protect the rights of the very people whom they victimized. An elected official should probably not break the law in the first place to avoid prosecution instead of relying on protection that the elected office may confer to avoid punishment for criminal activity.

[huadpe]

I don't find this terribly persuasive. First, I'm a consequentialist about this, so I don't find the justice for victims angle hugely persuasive. I don't think putting someone in prison does much concrete for them. Restitution (in as much as that is possible) would seem far more important to me. As far as a peaceful transition of power, I think it is worth a lot to keep. The opposite of peaceful transition of power is civil war, which is awful and worth great effort to avoid.

[sunburnd]

[STA-CITE]>I don't find this terribly persuasive. First, I'm a consequentialist about this, so I don't find the justice for victims angle hugely persuasive. [END-CITE]This would be a valid objection if we were talking about morality. I don't think we are though, we are talking about the violation of laws. These are two different things. [STA-CITE]>As far as a peaceful transition of power, I think it is worth a lot to keep. The opposite of peaceful transition of power is civil war, which is awful and worth great effort to avoid. [END-CITE]This certainly sounds like a bit of a false dichotomy. A elected official can be arrested just like any other person. The can be escorted by security out of the building just like any other employee. There are many options between a peaceful transition of power and all out civil war.

[looklistencreate]

Are you suggesting that leaders should have legal immunity if they're not caught while in office?

[huadpe]

It should be de facto, not de jure, but yes.

[looklistencreate]

Isn't that an awful incentive? Giving people with power a get-out-of-jail free card is just asking for terrible things to happen. If we've learned anything from world leaders over all of history, the people who seek power are more than willing to break a few rules to get what they want. How does removing the fear of going down for it help that?

[huadpe]

We're removing the fear in exchange for them giving up power. The thing that scares me is having a power hungry President making himself a dictator out of fear from what would come if he doesn't. If they won't get out of office, then no immunity, but at that point we're talking about a coup d'etat or violent rebellion to remove them. Either of those is deeply corrosive to democracy, and should be avoided at nearly all costs.

[cacheflow]

[STA-CITE]> We're removing the fear in exchange for them giving up power. The thing that scares me is having a power hungry President making himself a dictator out of fear from what would come if he doesn't. > [END-CITE]If we remove the fear of prosecution, then that opens up an entirely different can of worms. Without the fear of prosecution, there are plenty of steps they can now take that they were prohibited from taking before. For example, under that system, why wouldn't a first term president break every election law on the books during his second campaign? Or take bribes? Where's the downside?

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>For example, under that system, why wouldn't a first term president break every election law on the books during his second campaign? Or take bribes? Where's the downside? [END-CITE]Impeachment and removal from office is the downside. We're talking about transactional immunity where you only get it if you leave office.

[cacheflow]

So, as long as they limit the bribes and illegal activity to the last few days in office we should be OK with it? If an outgoing president accepted a pile of cash in exchange for pardoning a drug kingpin on his way out of office, we should have no recourse?

[looklistencreate]

So what framework are we assuming here? If it's a major world democracy, I don't think they're fragile enough for a President to literally have his will obeyed contrary to any law he disagrees with. A president in a stable democracy truly is limited from becoming a dictator by both law and popular will. Newer democracies in developing countries are more likely to have Presidents with complete disregard for the law, but are we going to give him leeway to commit crimes just because we're afraid of him committing worse ones? Are we prematurely surrendering to someone because we know he might become a dictator? This shows a lack of confidence in the constitution and in democracy itself, and makes it all the more likely that everything will collapse. Or is this a general rule to be applied everywhere?

[huadpe]

I'm willing to say this applies to both mature and nascent democracies. Most mature democracies today (US/Western Europe/Canada, etc) could probably survive a single prosecution in tact. I think 2 or more in succession would put us in very dangerous territory though, and make prosecuting your predecesor in office part of the game of politics. As to both newer and nascent democracies, I'm proposing transactional immunity. Essentially, you've done something bad, and you have to GTFO. The immunity only comes if you get out of power peacefully. You still face a serious sanction (loss of all power) for your crimes. But we really want you out within the constitutional system of removal, and are willing to make a deal to make sure that happens. I think that shows respect for the Constitution, to make sure that the removal happens within its terms.

[looklistencreate]

You express concern that two prosecutions in a row could set a precedent to make prosecuting the President normal. But what if the opposite happened twice? I'd argue that two Gerald Fords in a row would be just as disastrous if not more. The lesson to be learned by this is that Watergate pays, and that Nixon's only mistake was not erasing the tapes soon enough. And you can't just prosecute the President over nothing. I don't think it would be easy to successfully prosecute a third President over trumped-up fake crimes after you've convicted two for real ones. Discrediting the court system would take more than a two-time tradition.

[kepold]

you are implying that the US system is so weak that someone in power can retain power by their own will. I don't think that is true. Because the system of democracy is so deep here, I suspect that the criminal person's party would know they would lose power more broadly if they openly supported a criminal candidate. this is evidenced by the way that the congress pretty consistently kicks out congressmen who are implicated in crimes (not even convicted). they know that if they harbor explicitly criminal politicians, they will suffer. egypt is not a democracy, and only had one democratic election ever. so there is no institutional basis for supporting the prosecution of a criminal president. they all just appealed to the popular will. and indeed, the popular will is what would support prosecution in the USA, but it would be through the democratic system.

[huadpe]

I just replied to another very similar comment on this point: [STA-CITE]>The US has very strong constitutional norms that could probably withstand prosecuting a single President. If it became a pattern though, I would not be surprised to see the breakdown of democracy in America and a President essentially engaging in a coup, or rigging elections. Countries can backslide away from democracy over time (see: Venezuela). [END-CITE][STA-CITE]>I don't think we're anywhere near that today, mind you! But not prosecuting Presidents is a big part of keeping us away from that. I want to keep such a coup in the "that's crazy" territory. [END-CITE]>If you can convince me that democracy in the US could survive two such prosecutions of ex-Presidents in a row, I'd change my view.

[kepold]

the democratic institution survived an election where the loser took power (Bush v. Gore) after Bill Clinton who was impeached. If it can survive that, it can survive pretty much anything. There is just no evidence that you are correct here. if you could point to an example of a democratic breakdown, then maybe id believe you. But there aren't any. (and I'm not referring to the slow creep of the system breaking down, that's completely different than the direct and abrupt breakdown that you are referring to, which would be unprecedented).

[huadpe]

The US has had a failed transition of power (1860). It managed to survive, but only with great bloodshed. That was a breakdown of democracy. I don't think that mass treason prosecutions for the Confederate leaders would have helped reunification and reconstruction, for instance.

[cde458]

[STA-CITE]> It managed to survive, but only with great bloodshed. [END-CITE]The Civil War (the war part of it) was caused by the US's insistence to keep the nation together. Had Lincoln acknowledge the CSA's legitimacy then there would have been no need for bloodshed, the South peacefully left the Union.

[huadpe]

This is straying a bit off topic. The 1860 election was a failed transition of power. Even if the south had been allowed to secede, it would still be a failure to transition power in the US, since it meant power not transferring for half the country.

[[missing]]

[kepold]

that is not relevant to today's system.

[cde458]

By leader do you only the president or prime minister should possess this privilege. If so, we are dealing with a very small sample size so we have to be willing to accept that there aren't many examples. [STA-CITE]> The threat of prosecution undermines peaceful transition of power. Peaceful transition of power between political adversaries is the defining feature of a democracy governed by the rule of law. [END-CITE]Depends on the system in place. In the US the prosecution of presidents would lead to the same party maintaining power. So it wouldn't necessarily have to transfer between adversaries. [STA-CITE]> Egypt's recent history is indicative of this to me. [END-CITE]Egypt wasn't exactly stable to begin with.

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>By leader do you only the president or prime minister should possess this privilege. If so, we are dealing with a very small sample size so we have to be willing to accept that there aren't many examples. [END-CITE]I would say any elected official acting in an executive capacity. Not sure how I feel about cabinet ministers in a parliamentary system. I agree we have a small sample size to work with for examples. [STA-CITE]>Depends on the system in place. In the US the prosecution of presidents would lead to the same party maintaining power. So it wouldn't necessarily have to transfer between adversaries. [END-CITE]A one party state is not a democracy. That's exactly the sort of result I'm worried about. If you can't transition to another party, you don't have democracy. Power *has* to be able to transfer to an adversary to be meaningful. [STA-CITE]>Egypt wasn't exactly stable to begin with. [END-CITE]They were stable, but undemocratic. Their experiment with democracy failed I think in part due to the prosecutions of Mubarak and Morsi. Now they're back to military rule.

[cde458]

[STA-CITE]> I would say any elected official acting in an executive capacity [END-CITE]So governors and vice presidents shouldn't be prosecuted? [STA-CITE]> A one party state is not a democracy. [END-CITE]I'm not referring to any in my example. [STA-CITE]> That's exactly the sort of result I'm worried about. If you can't transition to another party, you don't have democracy. [END-CITE]And I'm mentioning a very important subset of cases where the ruling party has either managed to prosecute its own leaders or the opposition party has managed to prosecute the other sides' leaders knowing they will be replaced by that party. The US has managed to prosecute 2 of its presidents without harming the transition of power and in the case of Nixon, his conviction would have merely lead to another Republican's control. Such a situation I think leads towards parties being willing to allow their own leaders to get indicted. [STA-CITE]> They were stable, but undemocratic. Their experiment with democracy failed I think in part due to the prosecutions of Mubarak and Morsi. Now they're back to military rule. [END-CITE]I'm referring to the period when they began protesting. Either way, I think it is unfair to compare what sort of actions are best to be taken in nascent democracies recovering from military dictatorship, to the actions taken by well-established democracies.

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>So governors and vice presidents shouldn't be prosecuted? [END-CITE]Governors probably should be able to be prosecuted. I was thinking about the national level where you control things like the military. In a hypothetical confederate system where subnational executives control military power, I'd probably extend the de facto immunity to them. [STA-CITE]>And I'm mentioning a very important subset of cases where the ruling party has either managed to prosecute its own leaders or the opposition party has managed to prosecute the other sides' leaders knowing they will be replaced by that party. [END-CITE]I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying power could just transition to the same party to avoid the prosecution question. I still think it is not a good idea. Even if the new President/PM who will prosecute is from the same nominal party, the old executive has the same reasons not to vacate office. [STA-CITE]>The US has managed to prosecute 2 of its presidents without harming the transition of power and in the case of Nixon, his conviction would have merely lead to another Republican's control. Such a situation I think leads towards parties being willing to allow their own leaders to get indicted. [END-CITE]Which two? If you're referring to Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, I don't really consider impeachment to be what I'm talking about, since the punishment for impeachment extends only to removal from office and a ban on future office, which is exactly the sort of "plea deal" I said we should offer. I don't know of any American President being prosecuted after his term in office for his in office conduct. [STA-CITE]>I'm referring to the period when they began protesting. Either way, I think it is unfair to compare what sort of actions are best to be taken in nascent democracies recovering from military dictatorship, to the actions taken by well-established democracies. [END-CITE]That's fair. I think the norm I'm talking about basically exists in well-established democracies, so I admit there aren't many examples to draw from. **Edit to add:** On the particular reason why to exclude subnational leaders, there is a national government in place that can forcibly kick them out of office if they won't yield.

[cde458]

[STA-CITE]> I still think it is not a good idea. Even if the new President/PM who will prosecute is from the same nominal party, the old executive has the same reasons not to vacate office. [END-CITE]But see in these cases (within the US), the person is being forced to by Congress. As long as the rule of law has been well established, I don't see this as being an issue. [STA-CITE]> If you're referring to Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, I don't really consider impeachment to be what I'm talking about [END-CITE]It's clearly the first step. [STA-CITE]> since the punishment for impeachment extends only to removal from office and a ban on future office, which is exactly the sort of "plea deal" I said we should offer. [END-CITE]The punishment for impeachment would likely result in further prosecution on the criminal level. [STA-CITE]> I don't know of any American President being prosecuted after his term in office for his in office conduct. [END-CITE]And I don't know any American president who has been successfully impeached/convicted. We have too small of a sample size. [STA-CITE]> I think the norm I'm talking about basically exists in well-established democracies, so I admit there aren't many examples to draw from. [END-CITE]According to whom? For the US the only real example we have is Nixon, where his own party prevented further prosecution. In the cases of Bush/Cheney I think you are reading too far into the situation. [STA-CITE]> Edit to add: On the particular reason why to exclude subnational leaders, there is a national government in place that can forcibly kick them out of office if they won't yield. [END-CITE]And in a well-established democracy there are mechanisms to forcibly kick corrupt presidents out of office if they won't yield. I see your concern only applying in situations where a robust checks/balances system has not developed.

[huadpe]

[STA-CITE]>And in a well-established democracy there are mechanisms to forcibly kick corrupt presidents out of office if they won't yield. I see your concern only applying in situations where a robust checks/balances system has not developed. [END-CITE]I awarded a delta to someone else for a very similar point, so I'll give one to you too. ∆ As to Nixon, do you think the country would have been better off for him to have been prosecuted (assuming he resigned without a pardon)?

[cde458]

Well he did resign without a pardon. Ford's decision to pardon him came after his resignation and was far from guaranteed. I personally think the country would have been better for it. He was guilty and showed little remorse for his actions. Just look at his infamous statement from the Frost interview: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." Watergate helped to show the country that the president is not above the law, I think that a successful trial and conviction would have only cemented that fact.

[huadpe]

I've always operated under the assumption that Ford's pardon was privately promised before resignation. Obviously I disagree with Nixon's interpretation of the powers of the Presidency. But I don't think any extra catharsis from a prosecution would have gotten much more benefit in terms of substantive reform than we got out of Watergate to begin with. Everyone sat up and noticed well before the President resigned.

[cde458]

[STA-CITE]> I've always operated under the assumption that Ford's pardon was privately promised before resignation. [END-CITE]Well that's a fairly big assumption. Obviously I can't disprove a conspiracy theory, but I can tell you that it wasn't until a month later that he was pardoned, and that he allegedly refused the parliament initially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Pardon_and_illness [STA-CITE]> Everyone sat up and noticed well before the President resigned. [END-CITE]And they saw that those in power would not fully hold their fellow politicians accountable. The pardon is one of the reasons for the disastrous electoral results for the GOP in the next few elections.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cde458. [^cde458's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/cde458) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[fanningmace]

[STA-CITE]> The threat of prosecution is deeply corrosive to the willingness of leaders to give up power. [END-CITE]Your whole CMV doesn't make any sense to me because of this. The willingness of a president to give up power doesn't matter at all. It's not up to him or her. He/She has to give up power because he/she was voted out of office or had their term expire. Nixon couldn't have chosen to stay in power indefinitely because of fear of prosecution.

[huadpe]

The US has very strong constitutional norms that could probably withstand prosecuting a single President. If it became a pattern though, I would not be surprised to see the breakdown of democracy in America and a President essentially engaging in a coup, or rigging elections. Countries can backslide away from democracy over time (see: Venezuela). I don't think we're anywhere near that today, mind you! But not prosecuting Presidents is a big part of keeping us away from that. I want to keep such a coup in the "that's crazy" territory. If you can convince me that democracy in the US could survive two such prosecutions of ex-Presidents in a row, I'd change my view.

[Michaelmrose]

Neither the military nor the citizens would allow that blood would spill but it wouldn't work. Besides if we did a better job enforcing the law our leaders would just stop breaking the law.

[tricerabear]

Your argument may be true in first or second generation democracies where there are still aftershocks of the transition from a harsher form of government, but it sends entirely the wrong message in established democracies. In a real democracy, peacefully handing over power is the absolute baseline expectation, you don't get any reward for doing it. To start seeing it as a favor the president does to his successor is to poison the system. Second, I know presidents are often "commander in chief" and have some control over the military, but they do not have the power to be tyrants. They are not above all law, and do not have legal power once their term expires. An elected president in an actual democracy could not just mobilize the army and keep themselves permanently in power. Also the checks and balances of a democracy are supposed to keep leaders from doing things they would be prosecuted for. Prosecuting leaders who cross the line is part of how we send the message that "these things are not ok from our leaders." Finally, consider what behavior you incentivize by granting full immunity for departing leaders: They have literally no reason not to be as vicious as possible while in office, including doing terrible things to stay in office, because they will receive a full pardon. It's why it's so important that international courts start prosecuting dictators and warlords. Egypt is a really bad example of a democracy, considering Mubarak was president for 30 years by winning races in which he was the only candidate, and he had a habit of imprisoning dissidents without trial. He was ousted by violent revolution, which generally is unnecessary in true democracies. In Egypt's case it might be worth granting pardons in the name of peace, but that was not a case of a democratic handover of power.

[huadpe]

I'm gonna give a ∆ for the second point in particular. On reflection, I can't think of any mature democracy where the military would continue to follow orders from a President who had been deemed illegitimate by the courts or other such body.

[Bowbreaker]

You mentioned that your view is partially changed. What does still hold up?

[huadpe]

I'm not as convinced about nascent democracies, and am still worried about more nakedly political prosecutions (such as the farce of the Andrew Johnson impeachment in the US). I think that a rebuttable norm of nonprosecution is a bulwark against nakedly political prosecution in well established democracies, and I think that's good.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/tricerabear. [^tricerabear's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/tricerabear) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)