Michael Flynn pardoned

[Suudy]

ask you again.

I gave you an answer. You don’t like it, and that’s fine. If you want to ask a different question, I’m happy to engage.

 

[Nepperhan]

An interesting rundown:

"Does accepting a presidential or gubernatorial pardon imply an admission of guilt? The answer turns out to be complicated.

1. In 1915, the Supreme Court indeed said, of pardons, that “acceptance” carries “a confession of” guilt. [ Burdick v. United States (1915). Other courts have echoed that since.
2. On the other hand, a pardon has historically been seen as serving several different functions, one of which is protecting people who were convicted even though they were legally innocent. In [the words of Justice Joseph Story, the most respected early commentator on the Constitution (writing in 1833),

There are not only various gradations of guilt in the commission of the same crime, which are not susceptible of any previous enumeration and definition; but the proofs must, in many cases, be imperfect in their own nature, not only as to the actual commission of the offence, but also, as to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In many cases, convictions must be founded upon presumptions and probabilities.

Would it not be at once unjust and unreasonable to exclude all means of mitigating punishment, when subsequent inquiries should demonstrate, that the accusation was wholly unfounded, or the crime greatly diminished in point of atrocity and aggravation, from what the evidence at the trial seemed to establish? A power to pardon seems, indeed, indispensable under the most correct administration of the law by human tribunals; since, otherwise, men would sometimes fall a prey to the vindictiveness of accusers, the inaccuracy of testimony, and the fallibility of jurors and courts.

Indeed, some pardons expressly state that they are based on the pardoner’s decision that the defendant was actually innocent; and some legal rules expressly contemplate that — consider, for instance, the federal statute that provides for compensation of the unjustly convicted, which allows a plaintiff to prevail by showing (among other things) “that he has been pardoned upon the stated ground of innocence and unjust conviction.” UPDATE: The Justice Department Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners also expressly contemplate the possibility of “pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice,” though they unsurprisingly note that such applicants “bear a formidable burden of persuasion” (since the Justice Department’s strong presumption is that people convicted in federal court were indeed justly convicted).

1. Another function of a pardon has historically been protecting people who were seen as legally guilty but morally innocent.
2. Of course, pardons have also been seen as having various other functions as well, such as decreasing the punishment of someone who is legally and morally guilty, for instance when “the situation and circumstances of the offender, though they alter not the essence of the offence, ought to make [a] distinction in the punishment”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../is-accepting-a-pardon-an-admission-of-guilt/

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There are no rapists and pedophiles that have gone on to live holy lives.

That’s a gross overgeneralization. Here is an example of a rapist who went on to live a holy life.

Alessandro Serenelli - Wikipedia

Repentance is possible for anyone. No one, no matter how bad their crime, is beyond the reach of God’s mercy, at least while they are still alive.

That doesn’t mean they all should be let out into society to run amok, but they may be able to live a holy life in prison, in a hospital, or in some other controlled environment.

There are plenty of priests who committed sexual abuse on minors and were sent to live a life of prayer and penance in a monastery somewhere. They may very well be living holy lives, repenting for their sins. Only they and their confessors know for sure.