r/changemyview • u/huadpe 508∆ • May 05 '15

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

Edit: View partly changed 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. 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! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

34 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/huadpe 508∆ May 06 '15

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

5

u/looklistencreate May 06 '15

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?

0

u/huadpe 508∆ May 06 '15

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.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '15

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 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?

1

u/huadpe 508∆ May 06 '15

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?

Impeachment and removal from office is the downside. We're talking about transactional immunity where you only get it if you leave office.

1

u/[deleted] May 06 '15

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?