Can one be buttonholed in the street even if one has taken meticulous care to leave the house without any buttonholes? You sure can, as I found out this week. My column on the prerogative of mercy, or "presidential pardons", generated a greater response than usual: in the papers, by e-mail and on the street.

It was not all dissent, but there was enough to make me want to clear up some misconceptions, disentangle a few threads and reiterate a couple of points. The issue is important enough. It has to do with our identity as a society and not just with the transparency of our legal and political system.

First, we need to disentangle the matter from the Mugliett case. The latter is about whether the minister was right or wrong to intervene the way he did. It is separable from the concern about presidential pardons; although the concern arose as a result of this case, what is involved is a constitutional right and its potential abuse.

Not all those who voiced dissent are a million miles away from my position. My main target - the position farthest from mine - is that position that asserts that a general and perpetual interdiction from holding public employment and public office should never be reduced. One strike and you are out. Forever.

I have come across this position both in public and in private. I think it sufficiently well represented in Malta to merit a challenge. It is based on the realistic idea that character does not change. Surely, if one was susceptible to bribery once, one forfeits all trust.

The short retort is that both character and the world are more complex than this view allows. Under some conditions, one can act "out of character". Character is also always shaped by contradictory elements: we speak of "self-mastery" when referring to people who bridle them; we speak of some conditions "bringing out the worst" in us, because we know that often enough the worst of our character can be contained.

And some "bad characters" (not all) do reform. The literary achievement of the Gospel narratives and the Acts of the Apostles can be measured by their successful, insightful portrayal of men and women who undergo radical reform without changing character. (I bring up this example not because it is "gospel truth" but because something tells me these stories are better known than, say, The Brothers Karamazov.)

We need a legal system that can handle this psychological complexity, while at the same time sending a clear message that there is zero tolerance to bribery. There are alternative systems to ours we can discuss. But ours is not bad in itself.

I believe most readers go along with this. They believe in the possibility of personal reform. They want to allow for it. But they are afraid that the system is currently being abused - in a way that renders the idea of "reform" meaningless.

Of course, we should do our best to keep the idea meaningful. Keeping the process as transparent as possible is critical. But I believe that there are some mistaken ideas floating around about what is threatening the meaningfulness of the prerogative of mercy.

One of these mistaken ideas is that if lawyers automatically and frequently apply for a presidential pardon, then there is something deeply wrong with the system. But why should many, frequent applications worry us more than (say) many, frequent appeals in the courts?

Lawyers apply so automatically and so frequently for three reasons. There is no cost or legal risk; even if their application is turned down they can apply again. They talk to each other and know that sometimes - not always - a pardon is granted quickly (more on this below). Most important, they want to show their clients they are doing something for them.

So what? It is not the applications that should bother us, but whether the pardons are being granted on good grounds.

This leads to the second idea that is, in my view, mistaken. This is the view that for mercy to remain meaningful, only a few pardons must be granted. If many are granted, it means something is wrong.

Not necessarily. What law of nature states that only few people ever reform? Someone whose problems stemmed from drug addiction demonstrates reform by showing that one has successfully undergone a programme of rehabilitation.

Someone whose problems stemmed from stricken circumstances that led one to crack under the pressure can show reform by showing that those circumstances have been addressed.

Someone whose problems stemmed from being an arrogant jerk who believed that one could do anything shows reform if enough authorities testify that one has been shaken out of this fantasy and has already a demonstrable record of behaving differently.

In each case, the key concern is reliable demonstration.

In most cases, a key necessary element will be the passage of a reasonable amount of time - since reform usually involves the formation of habits and dispositions.

But not necessarily always: In cases where someone acted out of character, or because of circumstances that can be addressed immediately, there can be good reason to grant a pardon quickly.

I trust it can be seen that this approach is perfectly compatible with "tough love". It is not based on showing instant mercy to anyone who just demands it.

As for the need for greater transparency in the system, I agree. We owe it in part to those people who do reform. If there is widespread suspicion about the system, the pardon will never quite clear their record.

ranierfsadni@europe.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.