Sometimes, fundamental injustices occur even in courts of justice, and sometimes, even the guilty deserve a measure of mercy. But the power to issue these kind of reprieves should be exercised in a judicious manner. Those with this power shouldn't be able to play favorites.The News note Siegelman "was found guilty of abusing his power as Alabama's governor" and "although a couple of the charges have been thrown out by appeals courts, the conviction has survived challenge." Interestingly, the News argues a pardon would be unfair to codefendant Scrushy. Of course, the answer to that concern might be a pardon for both men! Says the News:
A pardon for Siegelman would look like a political fix, a reprieve for a longtime Democratic official who has not prevailed in the court system. The other problem with Siegelman's request is that pardons are generally reserved for applicants who, among other things, accept responsibility for their crimes. Siegelman has not done that and cannot do that, really, because he is convinced he committed no crime.But the News says "there's really no question about what Siegelman and Scrushy did in this case. The only questions are why they did it and whether their actions constituted a crime" and "a jury said yes." See full editorial here.