In the first hours of his second term, President Donald Trump pardoned nearly everyone convicted of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and commuted the sentences of 14 others, including Oath Keepers founder Stuart Rhodes.

CNN reported that nearly 1,600 people have been charged for crimes committed that day, and about 1,300 people have been convicted. According to CNN, about 300 cases "remain active and unresolved."

According to an analysis by The Washington Post, 14 leaders of the far-right radical groups "Oath Keepers" and "Proud Boys" have been convicted of seditious conspiracy. 379 people have been charged with felonious assault; most of them have been convicted. Although some are still awaiting trial. Trump also ordered the Justice Department to dismiss all pending indictments against the January 6 defendants.

To understand the situation, Conversation America's political editor Jeff Inglis spoke with retired federal Judge John E. Jones III, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2002. Currently president of Dickinson College.

What is the difference between pardon and commutation?

A pardon essentially expunges a crime and restores constitutional rights that would have been taken away from a person convicted of a federal felony, such as the right to vote and the right to unimpeded travel. Technically, this doesn't mean they didn't commit a crime, but it removes all consequences of the crime.

Pardons can be prospective, but in most cases throughout history, pardons were granted after a person was convicted or at least charged.

A commutation essentially means that the president believes the sentence is too harsh or too long. A commutation can get someone out of jail immediately and end their sentence, or it can shorten the remaining time they have to serve.

The key difference is that a reduced sentence does not change the facts of the conviction and does not eliminate the consequences.

How do judges view the president’s exercise of the power to pardon and commute sentences?

There have been instances throughout history where judges might grant commutations and pardons. When you sentence people, you often don't expect anyone to have their sentence commuted or pardoned. This is a very rare situation.

I would say that in my experience, if a person seeks a commutation or pardon without any gratitude or remorse, it will be much more difficult for the sentencing judge to accept.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibWJO02nNsY[/embed]

What do judges think of Trump's conduct in the January 6 case?

In many cases, these judges sentenced criminals to lower sentences than the government required. They gave them time to breathe and were below the advisory sentencing guidelines that judges must refer to when handing down sentences. They are not mandatory, but judges must explain why their sentence exceeds the guidelines when handing down a sentence. In light of the men's actions, the Ministry of Justice wanted the sentences to be at the upper end of the guidelines.

As for the offenders on January 6th, I think they not only received appropriate due process, but in some cases, I think they received excessive due process.

For example, look at the example of a man named Joseph W. Fischer in Pennsylvania. Fisher, a former police officer, was charged with obstructing congressional business by damaging or destroying items, among other charges. He argued that his actions did not meet the standard of obstruction of Congress and took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which sided with Fisher. He has the right to go to court. He has good lawyers. He took the case to the end and got away with this particular charge.

I think the judge was fully capable and in fact did impose a sentence based on the level of the offender's behavior.

You are a retired federal judge. How do this act of pardoning and commuting sentences for this group of people make you think about the justice system?

The two purposes of sentencing are deterrence and respect for the law.

To start with deterrence, imagine that you are a person who believes that taking the law into your own hands and trying to interfere in government affairs is the right thing to do when you disagree with the outcome. The message of a blanket pardon or commutation of sentence is essentially this: You can get away with these actions with impunity because your benefactor will eventually save you.

Respect for the law is another aspect. What I've heard from some incarcerated people is that they don't believe they did anything wrong and they want a pardon or a reduced sentence. Is it possible that these individuals committed similar acts at other times and thought they could do so with impunity?

I think Trump is going to make these people out to be martyrs and heroes, which in my opinion is contrary to the facts of these cases.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iludfj6Pe7w[/embed]

What do you think of Trump’s January 6 pardons and commutations and those issued by former President Joe Biden as he leaves office?

It's really too much trouble. Putting aside my judicial career, history, and legal career, the fact is that the public only sees dozens, if not hundreds, of pardons.

We may indeed be seeing an overuse of the pardon power at the moment, perhaps more than we have ever seen in history.

I think Biden doing him a disservice by pardoning his family. If you're going to do it, do it in broad daylight. Hunter Biden’s pardon still has a bad taste in the mouths of many.

I get this: He's taking Trump's threats of retaliation seriously. The Justice Department can convene grand juries and investigate people regardless of whether the charges are made in good faith, which can cost them millions of dollars in legal fees. As far as Hunter Biden is concerned, I think any parent can relate. This is his son and he has the right to do this. It was a grueling situation.

But then I thought about January 6, 2021, when we all turned on our televisions and saw something we had never seen in our history. It is rare for something to happen for the first time in history, and this searing image is deeply imprinted in the minds of many people.

I think you can definitely distinguish them logically and factually. But I don’t know if that’s going to happen in the court of public opinion.