The power to pardon is one of the minimum limited powers allowed to the principal in the Constitution. The only boundary stated in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to crimes against (i.e., not civil cases), and that they cannot influence a charge process. A pardon is the compensation or reducing of a punishment already levied; it does not influence the legal guiltiness of a person. A pardon, however, entirely destroys the legal results of a judgement. A pardon can be provided from the time a crime is performed, and can even be accoutred after the full punishment has been given. It cannot, however, be allowed before a crime has been committed, which would give the Principal the power to relinquish the laws.
The growth of the use of the pardon power sends back its number of purposes. One purpose is to modify fairness with compassion in suitable cases, and to do justice if new or reducing proof comes to bear on a person who may have been unlawfully judged. Pardons have also been used for the broader public-policy motive of safeguarding peace and repose in the case of rebellion and to bring peace after inner conflicts.
(Penalty)- Pardon for what and by whom?
Generally the penalty manage thus, is that of the principal penalty. When an act done by a person is punished by the principal penalty, the question arises whether the clemency entreating should be diverted, whether it is good because usually such penalty in Indian presumptive is only given in infrequent of the rare cases. The protection given behind is that while every offence is a shock that is greatly devastating of social and ethical fabric, penalty can never unfasten the injury that has been suffered by the sufferer and the community. Therefore pity begging should be considered and granted. Thus now the question arises who can grant pardon in a welfare state.
The scope for how to get a pardon power remains quite broad, almost unconditional. A pardon reaches both the penalty directed for the crime and the guilt of the criminal. So, that in the eye of the law the criminal is as innocent as if he had never committed the crime. A pardon is authentic whether accepted or not, because its motive are most importantly public. It is an official act.
The chances of a principal pardoning himself for an offence are not stopped by the clear language of the Constitution. It would seem to commit a breach between the principles that a man should not be a judge in his own case; that the rule of law is highest ranking and the Canada is a nation of laws, not men; and that the principal is not above the law.
The pardon power has been and will stay a powerful constitutional tool of the principal. Its use has the probability to achieve much good for the commonwealth or to increase political conflict. Only the sagacity of the Principal can protect and safeguard its suitable use.