New York Times managed this with eloquence.

  • litchralee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Formally speaking, a conviction will attach once a defendant is found guilty by a trial court. Even while one or more appeals may be ongoing, it is accurate to describe the defendant as convicted. The status of a federal conviction sticks until such time the conviction is judicially overturned by a successful appeal, or when pardoned by the executive. But not clemency, which is a reduction in the penalty by the executive, but retains the conviction.

    A person who has their conviction overturned or pardoned can no longer be accurately described as convicted. Although colloquially, it’s unclear if “ex-convict” is an acceptable description or not.

    • CallumWells@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      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).

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months 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.

      • litchralee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months 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.