system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The pardoning power of the U.S. President should not extend to those who have not yet been convicted of a crime.

Some of the most controversial pardons issued by Presidents in recent history (including the pardoning of Richard Nixon and a number of pardons issued by Donald Trump) were to people who were not yet tried and convicted of a crime.

The unilateral and unchecked pardoning power of a U.S. President is already controversial yet I can see the benefits of it in general. However the power to preemptively pardon people who haven’t even been tried or convicted is extremely dangerous specifically because not all the evidence obtained has been made public. It’s possible that the details of the crimes committed were far more heinous than what had been brought to light so far.

It also makes it far too easy for a President to issue blanket pardons to associates they themselves had ordered to break the law which would eliminate the possibility that they would ever be held accountable for their actions.

Lastly, our judicial system is based on the premise of “innocent until proven guilty.” Pardons by definition can only apply to someone guilty of a crime. Thus the preemptive pardon is at direct odds with the most important bastion of our entire judicial system. The preemptive pardon presumes guilt rather than innocence.

It’s my view that Presidential pardons should only be issued to people who were tried and found guilty of a crime and should *not* apply to anyone who is merely *suspected* of a crime.
gpt
What about Lincoln pardoning the Confederates?  Carter pardoning the draft dodgers?  Seems to me those were pretty crucial things that required pardoning people who'd never been charged with anything.