849
Outcomes of Jan. 6 Riot Cases (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

New York Times managed this with eloquence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I would say that one shouldn't use "ex-convict" if the conviction was overturned, since that's essentially saying the conviction was incorrect to begin with (as far as I understand), while it could be correct for someone who was pardoned, since it isn't directly about the conviction being wrong in that case (unless I've misunderstood that).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    while it could be correct for someone who was pardoned,

    Correct. Accepting a pardon requires the person to admit that they are guilty. Important to remember if the Grand Cheeto ends up winning and pardoning any/everyone involved. Part of a presidential pardon is accepting that you are guilty of the crime, and accept the pardon for said crime. You can’t accept the pardon without simultaneously admitting guilt, because the executive branch can’t pardon an innocent person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I phrased it that way because I'm also unsure as to how "ex-convict" should be used and how most people use it. I've heard other people say it to mean anyone who has been released from prison, although that doesn't make much sense for someone who just serves their time.

    As a result, so far as I'm aware, it's colloquially ambiguous, and lawyers and jurists may have a more stringent definition they might use.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent