The first father-don presidential pardon: Inside Biden’s unprecedented move

The decision of President Joe Biden to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, has made front-page news across the country. For the first time in American history, a president has offered clemency to an offspring, setting off a firestorm over questions of ethics, justice, and privilege.

Why Hunter Biden was pardoned: legal issues and personal problems

Hunter Biden was charged with federal firearms possession charges amid substance abuse. The following decision also comes amid public support from his father about his son’s ongoing struggles through these latest battles in the way of recovery. In the wake of it all, such a move puts Hunter Biden against his battles with addiction and substance abuse, and poor mental health—that both a number of supporters and opponents have come forth with. Conversely, in a motion to pardon his son to morph a problematic personal situation into one that is somewhat vindicated retained scandal on hand.

The reactions of his detractors have not been long in coming, since President Biden himself said a while ago that he would never use the pardon on his son.

READ ALSO: Hunter Biden pleads guilty in tax case: what penalty does he face?

Public and political reaction in response to the president’s move

The pardon has polarized both the political and public arenas: some viewed the move as a terrible abuse of presidential power to advance one’s interests, setting a terrible example, while others interpreted this as an act of mercy showing how deeply President Biden respects family values. This duality has fostered intense debates over whether this type of legislation undermines justice or whether it is important, even necessary, to focus on family relationships during times of personal crisis.

Should presidential pardons include family members?

This case, in many ways a landmark, brings to the fore contemporary ethical questions regarding the use of clemency powers by presidents to grant pardons to their immediate family members. Even as the Constitution invests huge powers in the presidency, a significant number of people feel uneasy, believing that this could finally result in the erosion of public trust. The opponents hold that this is a terrible precedent, which may encourage other presidents in the future to serve selfish interests. The proponents argue that even in personal and family matters, presidential authority must be allowed to apply if it implicates larger notions of justice and redemption.

READ ALSO: Does Hunter Biden have Secret Service protection?

What this unprecedented pardon may mean for future administrations

With that, a discussion on the boundaries of presidential power finally entered the mainstream, in a way which would forever change how a future president might navigate this issue through public opinion at least, to the application of the law. With the attention Congress and several advocacy groups have focused on it regarding the implications of executive clemency, it has brought an increasing call for clarification on when and how it should be exercised. The bottom line here is really a fine balance between individual discretion and public accountability.