Millennial Challenges: The World Cries out for Clemency and the Pardon Board contemplates as to what to recommend to the President

Global Strategic Enterprises, Inc for Peace and Prosperity- www.globalbelai4u.blogspot.com; www.SolomonicCron.org, globalbelai@yahoo.com


Re: Clemency, Pardon, Amnesty is the new buzz words for the Ethiopian President.

Will he or will he not? That is the question. The legal process is complete, guilt and sanction has been declared. It is time now for the pardon process and the Pardon Board is considering the case seriously. We trust they will consider the ramifications of what they are doing interms of Ethiopia's image that is likely to be projected after this process both at the Millennium and the events that will unfold after that.

In our considered opinion, it is worth making full pardon with the full citizenship rights protected. That is what is called real pardon!


The Ethiopian legal system and social and cultural value system supports the idea of clemency, pardon and amnesty within the context of atonement (admission of guilt, request for forgiveness and the grant of pardon) is explored further at the end of this attachment.

....."The atonement is a doctrine found within both Christianity and Judaism. It describes how sin can be forgiven by God. In Judaism, Atonement is said to be the process of forgiving or pardoning a transgression. This was originally accomplished through rituals performed by a High Priest on the holiest day of the Jewish year: Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Within Christianity there are numerous technical theories for how such atonement might work, including the ransom theory, the Abelardian theory, and the Anselmian satisfaction theory...." please read further at the end of the news below.



Here is what Wikipedia has for Pardon and Amensty, incase the President needs some assistance in his deliberation from the perspectives of Ethiopian and other civilizations in line with the current situtation for reference.

A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. It is granted by a sovereign power, such as a monarch or chief of state or a competent church authority.

Clemency is an associated term, meaning the lessening of the penalty of the crime without forgiving the crime itself. The act of clemency is a reprieve. Today, pardons and reprieves are granted in many countries when individuals have demonstrated that they have fulfilled their debt to society, or are otherwise deserving (in the opinion of the pardoning official) of a pardon or reprieve. Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who, it is claimed, have been wrongfully convicted. However, accepting such a pardon implicitly constitutes an admission of guilt, so in some cases the offer is refused.

Contents [hide]
1 Pardons and clemency by country
1.1 Pardons and clemency in Canada
1.1.1 Pardons
1.1.2 Clemency
1.2 Pardons and clemency in France
1.3 Pardons in Germany
1.4 Pardons and clemency in Hong Kong
1.5 Pardons in Islamic Republic of Iran
1.6 Pardons in Ireland
1.7 Pardons in Italy
1.8 Pardons in Russia
1.9 Pardons in South Africa
1.9.1 Process for Application For Presidential Pardon
1.10 Pardons and clemency in the United Kingdom
1.11 Pardons and clemency in the United States
2 Pardon in Christianity
3 References
4 External links



[edit] Pardons and clemency by country

[edit] Pardons and clemency in Canada

[edit] Pardons

Canadian Pardons are considered by the National Parole Board under the Criminal Records Act, the Criminal Code and several other laws. For Criminal Code crimes there is a three-year waiting period for summary offences, and a five-year waiting period for indictable offences. The waiting period commences after the sentence is completed. In principal the information provided above is correct but most convictions have addition time allocated due to court imposed fines, probation and other convictions.

Completing a Canadian pardon application is a complex and time-consuming process, and any error in the application may cause needless and costly delays. Processing time for each application depends on whether it qualifies as an emergency. For regular applications, the typical process can take a year or two, or more. Emergency Pardons are difficult to obtain, and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the National Parole Board. Once pardoned, a criminal records search for that individual reveals "no record".


[edit] Clemency

In Canada, clemency is granted by the Governor-General of Canada or the Governor in Council (the federal cabinet) under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. Applications are also made to the National Parole Board, as in pardons, but clemency may involve the commutation of a sentence, or the remission of all or part of the sentence, a respite from the sentence (for a medical condition) or a relief from a prohibition (e.g., to allow someone to drive that has been prohibited from driving).


[edit] Pardons and clemency in France

Pardons and acts of clemency (grâces) are granted by the President of France, who, ultimately, is the sole judge of the propriety of the measure. The convicted person sends a request for pardon to the President of the Republic. The prosecutor of the court that pronounced the verdict reports on the case, and the case goes to the Ministry of Justice's directorate of criminal affairs and pardons for further consideration.

If granted, the decree of pardon is signed by the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and possibly other ministers involved in the consideration of the case. It is not published in the Journal Officiel.

The decree may spare the applicant from serving the balance of his or her sentence, or commute the sentence to a lesser one. It does not suppress the right for the victim of the crime to obtain compensation for the damages it suffered, and does not erase the condemnation from the criminal record.

When the death penalty was in force in France, almost all capital sentences resulted in a presidential review for a possible pardon. Sentenced criminals were routinely given a sufficient delay before execution so that their requests for pardons could be examined. If granted, clemency would usually entail a commutation to a life sentence.

The Parliament of France, on occasions, grants amnesty. This is a different concept and procedure from that described above, although the phrase "presidential amnesty" (amnistie présidentielle) is sometimes pejoratively applied to some acts of parliament traditionally voted upon after a presidential election, granting amnesty for minor crimes.


[edit] Pardons in Germany

Similar to the United States, the right to grant pardon in Germany is divided between the federal and the state level. Federal jurisdiction in matters of criminal law is mostly restricted to appeals against decisions of state courts. Only "political" crimes like treason or terrorism are tried on behalf the federal government by the highest state courts. Accordingly, the category of persons eligible for a federal pardon is rather narrow. The right to grant a federal pardon lies in the office of the President of Germany, but he or she can transfer this power to other persons, such as the chancellor or the minister of justice.

For all other (and therefore the vast majority of) convicts, pardons are in the jurisdiction of the states. In some states it is granted by the respective cabinet, but in most states the state constitution vests the authority in the state prime minister. As on the federal level, the authority may be transferred.

Amnesty can be granted only by federal law.


[edit] Pardons and clemency in Hong Kong

Prior to the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the power of pardon was a royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom. This was used and cited the most often just prior to the handover from British to Chinese rule from inmates who had been given the death penalty (which was abolished in 1993) and did not have an alternative sentence from the court, and they, therefore, requested the Queen to exercise her power of mercy.

Since the handover, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong now exercises the power to grant pardons and commute penalties under HK Laws. Chap 211 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Sec, 118 Saving of prerogative of mercy.


[edit] Pardons in Islamic Republic of Iran
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader has the power to pardon and offer clemency under Article 110, § 1, §§ 11.


[edit] Pardons in Ireland
Under the Constitution of Ireland Art 13 Sec 6 the President of Ireland can pardon convicted criminals "The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President, but such power of commutation or remission may also be conferred by law on other authorities". However this is only after the consent of the Government of Ireland has been granted. The President cannot pardon people without the Government's consent; to do so would spark a constitutional crisis that may lead to the impeachment of the president.


[edit] Pardons in Italy

In Italy the President of the Republic can “ ... grant pardons, or commute punishments ...”, art. 87 of the Italian constitution. However, “ ... no acts of the President can came into force unless they are signed also by the Minister they are proposed by ... ”, art. 89 of the Italian Constitution. Concerning to the pardon, the proposing Minister must be the Minister of Justice, as we can understand by reading art 681 c.p.p. . The problem, at this moment, is related to the exact interpretation of the two articles of the Italian Constitution reminded above: do all of the acts of the President need a proposal and a sign of a Minister? or there are some acts that the President can take by himself, without any conditioning?. In other words, there are three different theories about the pardon in Italy:

President can take the pardon decree without any conditioning, and the Minister of Justice is obliged to sign the act.

President and Minister of Justice must agree to take the decree.
President is obliged to take the decree, simply by signing the Minister's proposal.
The problem has been examined by the Constitutional Court of Italy, that ruled that the first theory is the correct one (the Minister of Justice is obliged to sign the act).

The Minister of Justice, nowadays, aided by his offices, collects information about the condemned to make a correct pardon purpose. With the pardon decree, President can either extinguish the punishment, or change kind of punishment in another one permitted by law. Pardon, unless is said otherwise in the decree, can't remove all the effects of a penal sentence (like the mention in the certificate of conduct), in fact, it extinguishes only the main punishment (prison or pecuniary sanction), 174 c.p.


[edit] Pardons in Russia

The President of the Russian Federation is granted the right of pardon by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The Pardon Committee manages lists of people eligible for pardon and directs them to the President for signing. While President Boris Yeltsin frequently used his power of pardon, his successor Vladimir Putin is much more hesitant; in recent years he has not used pardon at all.


[edit] Pardons in South Africa

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.
Under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), the President of the Republic of South Africa is responsible for pardoning or reprieving offenders. This power of the President is only exercised in highly exceptional cases.

To pardon a person is to forgive a person for his/her deeds. The pardon process is therefore not available to persons who maintain their innocence and is not an advanced form of appeal procedure.

Pardon is only granted for minor offences after a period of 10 years has elapsed since the relevant conviction.

For many serious offences (for example if the relevant court viewed the offence in such a serious light that direct imprisonment was imposed) pardon will not be granted even if more than 10 years have elapsed since the conviction.


[edit] Process for Application For Presidential Pardon

A clearance certificate, must be obtained; this can be done at the nearest police station, from where the application will be sent to the Criminal Record Centre, and the certificate will be either mailed, or delivered to the police station concerned. A letter is then sent to the Department of Justice, Private Bag X81, Pretoria stating that it is an application for presidential pardon. A response can be expected within three months acknowledging receipt thereof, with attached forms from an Administrative Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Development. The process continues by completing and returning the application form.


[edit] Pardons and clemency in the United Kingdom

The power to grant pardons and reprieves is a royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom. It was traditionally in the absolute power of the monarch to pardon and release an individual who had been convicted of a crime from that conviction and its intended penalty. Pardons were granted to many in the 18th century on condition that the convicted felons accept transportation overseas, such as to Australia. The first General Pardon in England was issued in celebration of the coronation of Edward III in 1327. In 2006 all British soldiers executed for cowardice during World War I were pardoned, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions. (See Armed Forces Act 2006, [1].)

There are significant procedural differences in the present use of the royal pardon, however. Today the monarch may only grant a pardon on the advice of the Home Secretary or the First Minister of Scotland (or the Defence Secretary in military justice cases), and the policy of the Home Office and Scottish Executive is only to grant pardons to those who are "morally" innocent of the offence (as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by misapplication of the law). Pardons are generally no longer issued prior to conviction, but only after conviction. A pardon is no longer considered to remove the conviction itself, but only removes the penalty which was imposed. Use of the prerogative is now rare, particularly since the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which provide a statutory remedy for miscarriages of justice.

According to the Act of Settlement a pardon can not prevent a person from being impeached by Parliament, but may rescind the penalty following conviction. In England and Wales nobody may be pardoned for an offence under section 11 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (unlawfully transporting prisoners out of England and Wales).[2]


[edit] Pardons and clemency in the United States
In the United States, the pardon power for Federal crimes is granted to the President by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President:

shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites and amnesties.[1] All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the Department of Justice. Since 1977, presidents have received about 600 pardon or clemency petitions a year[3] and have granted around ten percent of these[4], although the percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration (fewer pardons have been granted since World War II),[5]

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. However, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong defense of the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. It is worthy of note that Hamilton called for something like an elective monarch at the Philadelphia Convention. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile Federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford's public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. He was then narrowly defeated in the presidential campaign, two years later. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson's sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter's grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush's pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton's pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office - including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, and George W. Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term.

The Justice Department recommends anyone requesting a pardon must wait five years after conviction or release prior to receiving a pardon. A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime. Clemency may also be granted without the filing of a formal request and even if the intended recipient has no desire to be pardoned. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, the Pardon Attorney will consider only petitions from persons who have completed their sentences and, in addition, have demonstrated their ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement.[2]

It appears that a pardon can be rejected, and must be affirmatively accepted to be officially recognized by the courts. Acceptance also carries with it an admission of guilt.[3] However, the federal courts have yet to make it clear how this logic applies to persons who are deceased (such as Henry O. Flipper - who was pardoned by Bill Clinton), those who are relieved from penalties as a result of general amnesties and those whose punishments are relieved via a commutation of sentence (which cannot be rejected in any sense of the language.)[4]

The pardon power of the President extends only to offenses cognizable under U.S. Federal law. However, the governors of most states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement.

See also: List of people pardoned by a United States president

[edit] Pardon in Christianity
In Christian theology, a pardon is the result of forgiveness, extended by God through Jesus. A pardoned person is forgiven their sins, and thus experiences new birth, or is born again. For more information, see:

Atonement
Atonement (Governmental view)
Confession
Sin
Substitutionary atonement

[edit] References
^ P.S. Ruckman, Jr. 1997. “Executive Clemency in the United States: Origins, Development, and Analysis (1900-1993),”27 Presidential Studies Quarterly, 251-271
^ Clemency Regulations. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved on 2007-03-08.
^ Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
^ see Chapman v. Scott (C. C. A.) 10 F.(2d) 690)

[edit] External links
Pardon Research and Data
USDOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney
List of pardon/clemency policies for various U.S. states
Pardon application for Canada
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon"


Here is the International media campaigning for Pardon and Clemency. I like what I read, when the world is requesting for Pardon and Ethiopia delivers it.

***********************************************************************

1 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/18/america/NA-GEN-US-Ethiopia.php

2. http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=68&art_id=nw20070717134649767C223540&set_id=

3. http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL17835186.html

4. http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-07-17-voa14.cfm



Source: AP

1. U.S. Congress, Bush administration exasperated by Ethiopian backsliding on democracy

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

WASHINGTON: Both the Bush administration and Congress are growing exasperated over Ethiopia's backsliding from democracy but are wary of applying too much pressure against a country that has become an important anti-terror ally in East Africa.

Members of the Democratic-controlled Congress are under fewer restraints than President George W. Bush's administration, which has relied on the help of Ethiopian troops in ousting Islamic militants from power in parts of neighboring Somalia.

In the House of Representatives, the Africa subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee is completing work Wednesday on legislation that decries Ethiopia's recent human rights record and opens the door for sanctions. The subcommittee's approval would be a first major step, but the bill still would have to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by Bush.

Democratic Rep. Donald Payne, the subcommittee's chairman, told The Associated Press he has had no response to his bill from White House officials, but "I think they would prefer if we just left it alone."

"This is not a punitive bill," he said. Any sanctions would kick in only if Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's government does not return to democracy and restore human rights protections.

On Monday, a court in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa sentenced 35 opposition politicians and activists to life in prison and eight others to lesser terms for inciting violence in an attempt to overthrow the government. Judges threw out charges of treason and attempted genocide and rejected the government's recommendation for death sentences.

The Federal High Court trial began in December 2005 after the opposition organized protests following elections earlier that year that foreign observers said were badly flawed. The demonstrations were smashed by police, and scores were killed.

The defendants asked for pardons in a letter sent to Meles weeks before the sentences were announced. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Barry F. Lowenkron, assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights, said Meles announced Monday that he would recommend clemency. The announcement apparently was not made publicly.

The Bush administration has made spreading democracy a cornerstone of its foreign policy. But the administration has had to violate the principle more than once: refusing to deal with objectionable elected governments, such as that headed by the militant Islamic group Hamas in the Palestinian territories. It also has dealt with clearly undemocratic governments such as those in some former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

In an indication that even the administration has determined not to pull all its punches in Ethiopia, Lowenkron's testimony before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee was relatively straightforward and at times harsh.

He spoke of the illegal detention of "opposition leaders and tens of thousands of their supporters" and said: "To this day the crackdown casts a shadow over the Ethiopian government."

Lowenkron said he had spent 85 minutes of a 90-minute conversation with Meles in March discussing the state of democracy in Ethiopia and Meles said he would make changes "because it's in the interest of the people of Ethiopia."

"I told him it should be in the interest of all the people of Ethiopia, including those that are in prison and need to be let out," Lowenkron said.

Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold, who chaired the hearing, urged strong action to right the Ethiopian situation.

"We cannot tolerate a country like that moving in the wrong direction if they want to have the relationship with us that they want to have and that we want to have with them," Feingold said.

____________________

Source: AFP

2. Ethiopia mulls opposition pardon bid
July 17 2007

Addis Ababas - The Ethiopian government is looking into pardon requests filed by dozens of opposition members, whose heavy jail terms drew a barrage of international criticism, a senior official said on Tuesday.

"The government received the request for pardon by the detainees almost three weeks ago," Bereket Simon, a spokesperson in the prime minister's office, told AFP.

"They ask the government of Ethiopia and the people to pardon them," he said.

On Monday, Ethiopia's high court slapped heavy jail terms, including 35 life sentences, on a group of opposition members accused of fomenting rebellion following disputed 2005 polls.

Those sentenced in the wake of violence that rocked the capital during the 2005 elections included Hailu Shawl and Bernahu Nega, two senior leaders of the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) party, and four journalists.

US calls for clemency for jailed Ethiopian oppositionBereket said their appeals had been passed on to the pardon board, adding that the final decision was down to President Girma Woldegiorgis.

The United States, a key supporter of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's regime, urged the state to show clemency.

"As a matter of trying to bring together the Ethiopian people and bring an end to this particular chapter of political turmoil, we would urge the Ethiopian authorities to consider - strongly consider clemency for these individuals," State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said.

Several rights and media watchdogs lashed out at Ethiopia over the sentences, describing them as outrageous and further evidence of the regime's repressive policies
____________________


Tue 17 Jul 2007
3. US calls for clemency for jailed Ethiopian opposition
Tsegaye Tadesse

ADDIS ABABA, July 17 (Reuters) - The United States has urged Ethiopia to consider clemency for 35 opposition members sentenced to life in prison for trying to topple the government in a case that has drawn condemnation from rights groups.

The group was sentenced on Monday along with eight other defendants who received jail terms ranging between 18 months and 18 years for charges relating to violent protests over 2005 elections the opposition say were rigged.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States, a key ally of Ethiopia, was following the case very closely.

"While I can't tell you exactly what powers of clemency (Prime Minister Meles Zenawi) himself may possess, we would urge him as well as the Ethiopian government to exercise powers of clemency in this regard," McCormack said on Monday.

"As a matter of trying to bring together the Ethiopian people and bring an end to this particular chapter of political turmoil, we would urge the Ethiopian authorities to consider -- strongly consider clemency for these individuals."

Ethiopia says the defendants, among them leaders of the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), had written to Meles before the sentencing asking for mercy.

The defendants expressed "regret" for attempting to get rid of the "constitutionally established government" in a letter published by the state-owned Ethiopian Herald newspaper on Tuesday.

"We stand in supplication before the government and people of Ethiopia and ask, with admission to and regret for the mistake we have committed, for forgiveness as is customary," the letter was quoted as reading.

No one from the opposition has yet to confirm the letter was written by the defendants.

Officials say clemency by law is a matter for President Girma Woldegiorgise rather than Meles. But the prime minister still wields strong influence and analysts believe his opinion would be carefully considered.

They say the letter will be considered by a so-called board of amnesty, which will then submit its recommendations to Girma.

The court ruling also revoked the defendants' constitutional rights, including the right to stand for election -- which analysts say may remain in place even if they are freed.

Rights groups and donor governments have criticised the case as an attempt to suppress the opposition after it won its largest ever parliamentary showing in what was seen as Ethiopia's freest election.

It was not immediately clear whether the defendants, many of whom refused to present a defence saying it was a politically motivated case, would appeal the court decision. (Additional reporting by Sue Pleming in Washington)

_____________

Source: VOA


4. Ethiopia Pardon Board to Decide Fate of Convicted Opposition Leaders

James Butty


Washington, D.C.


17 July 2007


The Ethiopian government said 35 opposition politicians and activists who were sentenced to life imprisonment Monday by the country's Federal High Court are free to seek an appeal. Bereket Simon, advisor to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi told VOA the opposition leaders and activists have signed a request asking the government to pardon them for committing what he called crimes against the constitution.

“It has been verified that the opposition who are in prison have signed a request for the government to pardon them based on the fact that they have made mistakes. So it has become a new development now,” he said.

In its decision Monday, the Federal High Court also denied the opposition leaders the right to vote or run for public office for inciting violence in an attempt to overthrow the government. Simon said the court’s decision is in line with Ethiopian law.

“That is a judicial decision. You know if they have been found criminal, and incarcerated, they have no right to vote or to run for public office,” he said.

Simon dismissed claims by international human rights groups that the trial was an attempt to silence the critics of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

“This is a process that was conducted in a fair manner in the presence of international observers. It was not politically motivated. This is a law enforcement issue; it is a legal issue. They have got the chance to defend themselves, but they were not able to defend the overwhelming facts that the government has presented. In any case, they have submitted an admission of guilt paper for the government. They have admitted clearly that they have committed mistakes that they have been trying to overthrow the government in an unconstitutional way,” Simon said.

Simon again rejected claims that the life sentence was an attempt by Prime Minister Zenawi to get rid of his political opposition. He said the Zenawi government is not afraid of the opposition.

“The same political opposition is in parliament. We are working with them; we are debating, arguing every day. We are not afraid of any of their ideas. Secondly, we will see how the Pardon Board will react to their request for pardon. If the Pardon Board accepts their request, these people might be out of prison. So in that case, it clearly tells you that this government is not afraid of the opposition as such,” he said.

Simon said the Ethiopian government initiated a legal process against the opposition leaders, which he said consummated Monday with the announcement of their life sentence. At the same time, Simon said elders in Ethiopia have been in contacted with the jailed opposition leaders.

“Both the elders and the prisoners reached an agreement; the prisoners admitted guilt. But the initiative of the elders had nothing to do with the government. The process of the government is a legal process, which has run its own course. No pressure from any outside force, no blackmail or whatsoever has stopped that from taking place, and that has been consummated now,” Simon said.


5. Ethiopia needs to take seriously democracy and human
rights

Editorial, The Wall Street Journal

July 18, 2007 — Let’s play name-that-state. After the EU declared its 2005 elections flawed, this country’s troops killed 193 protestors and arrested 20,000 more.
Last week, 42 of the accused were convicted of inciting violence to overthrow the state (down from an original charge of genocide and treason).

Thirty-five were condemned to life in prison and forbidden to vote on Monday. Some of the accused were journalists, so their publishing houses were fined and closed.

Did you guess Ethiopia? Probably not, since this African state has often been held up as a pillar of good governance on a troubled continent. In just over a decade, Ethiopia went from military rule to a parliamentary system. But this democracy is on paper only.

The convictions are not an isolated incident, nor are the 42 defendants just any opposition figures. They include the elected mayor of Ethiopia’s capital, Addis
Ababa, a former Harvard scholar and a former U.N. envoy. They’ve been condemned to the same fate, life in prison, as ousted military strongman Mengistu Hailee Mariam, who is held responsible for the murder of 150,000 academics and university students in two decades in power.

Given the government’s recent record, it’s odd to say the least to see Prime Minister Meles Zenawi advise Tony Blair’s Commission for Africa in 2005 on the
future of the continent. Or to hear that the Bush Administration considers Mr. Meles a "staunch ally" in the war on terror for searching out al Qaeda suspects
during Ethiopia’s messy military intervention in neighboring Somalia and makes the country a priority recipient of U.S. assistance. (The world last year
sent $1.6 billion.)

America needs to work with all kinds of regimes and military cooperation doesn’t always have to be tied to democratic progress. But if Ethiopia wants to become a
real ally of the U.S., possibly playing host to the new African Command, it needs to take seriously democracy and human rights.





******

The basis of pardon should be "atonement" and what does wikipedia say about atonment, here it is....

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!
Atonement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Atonement (disambiguation).
Part of a series of articles on
Christianity

Foundations
Jesus Christ
Church · Theology
New Covenant · Supersessionism
Dispensationalism
Apostles · Kingdom · Gospel
History of Christianity · Timeline


Bible
Old Testament · New Testament
Books · Canon · Apocrypha
Septuagint · Decalogue
Birth · Resurrection
Sermon on the Mount
Great Commission
Translations · English
Inspiration · Hermeneutics

Christian theology
Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
History of · Theology · Apologetics
Creation · Fall of Man · Covenant · Law
Grace · Faith · Justification · Salvation
Sanctification · Theosis · Worship
Church · Sacraments · Eschatology


History and traditions
Early · Councils
Creeds · Missions
Great Schism · Crusades · Reformation
Great Awakenings · Great Apostasy
Restorationism · Nontrinitarianism
Thomism · Arminianism
Congregationalism

[show]Eastern Christianity
Eastern Orthodox · Oriental Orthodox · Syriac Christianity · Eastern Catholic

[show]Western Christianity
Western Catholicism · Protestantism · Anabaptism · Lutheranism · Calvinism · Anglicanism · Baptist · Methodism · Evangelicalism · Fundamentalism · Unitarianism · Liberalism · Pentecostalism · Christian Science · Unity Church

[show]Restorationism
Adventism · Christadelphians · Iglesia ni Cristo · Jehovah's Witnesses · Mormonism


Topics in Christianity
Movements · Denominations
Ecumenism · Preaching · Prayer
Music · Liturgy · Calendar
Symbols · Art · Criticism


Important figures
Apostle Paul · Church Fathers
Constantine · Athanasius · Augustine
Anselm · Aquinas · Palamas · Wycliffe
Tyndale · Luther · Calvin · Wesley
Arius · Marcion of Sinope
Pope · Archbishop of Canterbury
Patriarch of Constantinople

Christianity Portal

This box: view • talk • edit
Christianity Portal

The atonement is a doctrine found within both Christianity and Judaism. It describes how sin can be forgiven by God. In Judaism, Atonement is said to be the process of forgiving or pardoning a transgression. This was originally accomplished through rituals performed by a High Priest on the holiest day of the Jewish year: Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Within Christianity there are numerous technical theories for how such atonement might work, including the ransom theory, the Abelardian theory, and the Anselmian satisfaction theory.




Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 The atonement in Christianity—general themes
2.1 Roman Catholic view
2.2 Judicial (Protestant) view
2.3 Christus Victor
2.4 First man view
3 Need for a redeemer
4 Main theories in detail
4.1 Christus Victor
4.2 Physical theory
4.3 Moral influence
4.4 Satisfaction
4.5 Governmental
4.6 Ransom
5 Other denominational perspectives
5.1 Eastern Orthodox
5.2 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
6 See also
7 References
8 External links



[edit] Etymology
The word atonement gained widespread use in the sixteenth century after William Tyndale recognized that there was not a direct translation of the concept into English. In order to explain the doctrine of Christ's sacrifice, which accomplished both the remission of sin and reconciliation of man to God, Tyndale invented a word that would encompass both actions. He wanted to overcome the inherent limitations of the word "reconciliation" while incorporating the aspects of "propitiation" and forgiveness.

It is interesting to note that while Tyndale labored to translate the 1526 English Bible, his proposed word comprises two parts, 'at' and 'onement,' which also means reconciliation, but combines it with something more. Although one thinks of the Jewish Fast of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), the Hebrew word is ‘kaper’ meaning ‘a covering’, so one can see that ‘reconciliation’ doesn't precisely contain all the necessary components of the word atonement.

Expiation means “to atone for.” Reconciliation comes from Latin roots re, meaning “again”; con, meaning “with”; and ultimately, 'sol', a root meaning “seat”. Reconciliation, therefore, literally means “to sit again with.” While this meaning may appear sufficient, Tyndale thought that if translated as "reconciliation," there would be a pervasive misunderstanding of the word's deeper significance to not just reconcile, but "to cover," so the word was invented.[1][2][3]


[edit] The atonement in Christianity—general themes
A number of theories of the atonement have been advanced by Christians to explain how and why the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ redeem. Concerning them, their usefulness, and their role, C. S. Lewis wrote:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.[4]


[edit] Roman Catholic view
The Roman Catholic Church does not limit itself to a single theory but several, including primarily the satisfaction theory but also the ransom, moral influence theories, and the primacy of the Incarnation. These multiple perspectives are needed to express the fullness of the atonement.

“ On looking back at the various theories noticed so far, it will be seen that they are not, for the most part, mutually exclusive, but may be combined and harmonized. It may be said, indeed, that they all help to bring out different aspects of that great doctrine which cannot find adequate expression in any human theory.[5] ”

Rather than considering these different views as theories, it is much better to consider them as expressions or representations. While theologians may at times emphasize one idea, this does not imply that the others are any less true or valuable. To consistently emphasize only one aspect of the atonement is dangerous.


[edit] Judicial (Protestant) view
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

The almost unanimous, contemporary Protestant view is that of penal substitution. The view is so widely believed that few Protestants are aware of alternative understandings of the atonement. In the rare instances when they encounter other Christians who profess non-substitution views, Protestants usually consider these views heretical.[citation needed]

However, Protestants still use the language of alternative understandings prolifically especially where they are used in the Bible. Usually this is done because, while they consider the penal substitution theory as the literal understanding, they still feel free to use other differing ideas as figurative language about the atonement. This is true, for example, of the Christus Victor view. There are instances when Protestants confuse other views as the satisfaction view, Matthew 20.28, for example. Jesus said of himself, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Of course, there are always exceptions. More liberal Protestants, particularly scholars, are more likely to relate with the moral influence view.


[edit] Christus Victor
The Christus Victor view, which is more common among Lutherans (see, e.g. G. Aulen's book Christus Victor), and Eastern Orthodox Christians, holds that Jesus was sent by God to defeat death and Satan. Because of his perfection, voluntary death, and resurrection, Jesus defeated Satan and death, and arose victorious. Therefore humanity was no longer bound in sin, but was free to rejoin God through faith in Jesus.

In contrast to the judicial view, the Christus Victor model emphasizes a spiritual battle between good and evil. This battle is on a cosmic scale. The judicial view would require Christians to believe that God voluntarily punished Jesus for their sins, whereas the Christus Victor view sees humanity as formerly in the power of Satan, who was defeated by Jesus; and God, through Jesus, broke us out of Satan's power.

The Christus Victor sometimes has also been used to argue that Jesus defeated sin and death for everyone, whether or not they hear of Jesus, granting non-Christians the chance of eternal life (or a guarantee thereof, depending on the particular theology in question).


[edit] First man view

The first man view, held by a small minority of Christians, especially Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians, states that Jesus was a person just like the rest of humanity, but due to his remarkable faith, purity, sinlessness, and perfection, he earned eternal life, and was resurrected because Death could not hold him. They also believe that by following his teachings and example others may also ultimately earn eternal life.

The first man view can be compared with the Old Testament stories of Enoch and Elijah, who walked with God to such a degree of faithfulness that they were not required to die. Enoch 'was no more,' and Elijah was carried in a whirlwind. In the same way, Jesus was faithful to such a degree, that even though he was killed, his Faith earned him Eternal Life. And in the same way, if we are faithful to the same degree, we can also be free from death.


[edit] Need for a redeemer
Many Christians believe the atonement was necessary to compensate and reverse the fall of Adam as noted in 1 Corinthians:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. It was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman, who, yielding to deception, fell into sin... As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.[6]

In this view Jesus is believed to have submitted voluntarily as the liaison for both humanity and God to answer the ends of the law previously transgressed by Adam. However, Stephen L Harris, among others, views this attribution as slightly simplistic, and a conflict with the history of Ancient Israel (or the Old Testament). Harris argues that the promises given to Abraham were fulfilled when God promised David a royal kingship forever and the temple on Mount Zion was established:

David is told he will rule over Israel 'forever' (2 Sam 7:8-17; 23:5 Ps. 89:19-37). When Davidic kings are crowned, Yahweh adopts them as 'sons,' echoing Yahweh's paternal relationship to Canaanite rulers (Ps 2;110). Because of the close bond between Yahweh and the Davidic dynasty, the authors of Chronicles can refer to the Davidic throne as God's "kingdom" (1 Chron. 17:14; 28:5; 29:11).[7]


Professor Hiroshi Obayashi, former Chair and Professor of the Department of Religious Studies Rutgers, agrees with Harris and believed this created a dilemma within God's kingdom when the Israelites were involved in the diaspora, or the great scattering due to Assyrian and Babylonian occupation. The diaspora was seen as a "rejection of the entire past" by the Prophets Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Deutero Isaiah, thus God completely rejected the history of Ancient Israel along with the creation stories of Adam and Eve.[8]

The prophets redefined the "covenantal religion into one of faith, justice, and love" and ushered in a new view of the afterlife after the Maccabean revolt. "This time it was not the shared suffering of all of the Jews (much like the stories in Joshua), but only those who remained loyal to the Torah who suffered and died. Thus the ancient belief of Sheol, the underworld, which summarized the common fate of all the Jews proved no longer satisfactory."[8] Sheol, or a state of nothingness, was replaced by the idea of resurrection, "the most individualistic of all religious conceptions...Resurrection and apocalypticism were the answer to changing times."[8]

This new theme of resurrection is seen in the early Christian tradition. Many Christians came to understand the atonement as the theology of Jesus dying on the cross for the sins of humanity. Seen in this way, they regarded the atonement as the crowning achievement of the Christian faith. It answered the theological question of why God or the Son descended on earth as a human man, born to the virgin Mary as the human baby Jesus, and the need for an intercession for the human family and paralleling the Greek myth of Dionysus.

The physical and spiritual mechanics of how the atonement was accomplished is thought to be outside the realm of human rationality, thus it requires faith to be believed. As a preamble to the atonement, Christ taught love, faith, hope, kindness, forbearance, to bear one another's burdens, repentance, forgiveness, baptism, and endeavored to overcome the sins of the world through the Atonement by fulfilling the ends of the laws of heaven, which Christ is said to have established with direction from the Father.

This was accomplished through his preeminent example of perfection, overcoming temptation, descending below all things (including the Crucifixion), and overcoming the world by making all things new physically (resurrection) and spiritually (salvation). Many Christian denominations believe the Atonement was finished with the suffering and execution of Christ on the cross, and still others believe it was finished with the resurrection. Nevertheless, Christians largely believe the Atonement is considered to be accomplished, subsequently unlocking the gates of heaven forever to the human family.


[edit] Main theories in detail
Please help improve this article by expanding this section.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. Please remove this message once the section has been expanded.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.


[edit] Christus Victor
Main article: Christus Victor
Ransom: Origen, Gregory of Nyssa

Scapegoating: William Tyndale (who invented the word from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts), René Girard, James Alison, Gerhard Förde see 'In Christianity' in Scapegoat


[edit] Physical theory
Recapitulation: Irenaeus, Athanasius, Cappadocian Fathers, Eastern Orthodox Church

Edward Irving, T. F. Torrance


[edit] Moral influence
Main article: Atonement (moral influence view)
Pierre Abélard (It is questionable whether Abélard himself taught this model of atonement)
Hastings Rashdall


[edit] Satisfaction
Main article: Atonement (satisfaction view)
Divine satisfaction: Anselm of Canterbury & salvation in Catholicism

Penalty or punishment satisfaction: John Calvin, Calvinism, & imputed righteousness

Vicarious repentance, John Mcleod Campbell, R. C. Moberly


[edit] Governmental
Main article: Atonement (governmental view)
Hugo Grotius, James Arminius, John Miley
Substitutionary atonement & Atonement (Governmental view)
Jonathan Edwards & Charles Grandison Finney

[edit] Ransom
Main article: Atonement (ransom view)

[edit] Other denominational perspectives

[edit] Eastern Orthodox
Eastern Orthodoxy has a substantively different soteriology; this is sometimes cited as the core difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Orthodox view is closely related to the Incarnation and is thus closest to the Physical redemption theory.


[edit] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) expands the doctrine of the atonement complementary to the substitutionary atonement concept, including the following:

Suffering in Gethsemane. The Atonement began in Gethsemane and ends with Christ's resurrection. (Luke 22:44; Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–19; Mosiah 3:7; Alma 7:11–13. Christ described this agony in the Doctrine and Covenants as follows: "...how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.... Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit..." (19:15,18).
The relationship of justice, mercy, agency, and God's unconditional love. Christ's infinite atonement was required to satisfy the demands of justice based on eternal law, rendering him mediator, redeemer, and advocate with the Father. Thus, he proffers divine mercy to the truly penitent who voluntarily come unto him, offering them the gift of his grace to "lift them up" and "be perfected in Him" through his merits (2 Nephi 2 and 9; Alma 12, 34, and 42; Moroni 9:25; 10:33; compare Isaiah 55:1-9).
No need for infant baptism. Christ's atonement completely resolved the consequence from the fall of Adam of spiritual death for infants, young children and those of innocent mental capacity who die before an age of self-accountability, hence all these are resurrected to eternal life in the resurrection. However, baptism is required of those who are deemed by God to be accountable for their actions.
Empathetic purpose. Christ suffered pain and agony not only for the sins of all men, but also to experience their physical pains, illnesses, anguish from addictions, emotional turmoil and depression, "that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:12; compare Isaiah 53:4).

[edit] See also
Blood atonement
Divine grace
Divine mercy
Forgiveness
Justification
Mercy seat
Pardon
Propitiation
Scapegoat
Sin
Substitutionary atonement



[edit] References
^ The Archbishop of Canterbury: William Tyndale; Reformer and Rebel. A Quincentenary Appreciation. Lambeth Palace, 5th October 1994 [1]
^ Online Etymology Dictionary, Yom Kippur, 2001 [2]
^ David Rolph Seely, PhD. “Words ‘Fitly Spoken’: Tyndale’s English Translation of the Bible.” [3]
^ C. S. Lewis. Mere Christianity, Chapter 4
^ Doctrine of the Atonement Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
^ See Corinthians 11:2-10 and 15:22
^ Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible. (McGraw Hill, 2002) p 88
^ a b c Hiroshi Obayashi, Death and the Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. (Praeger Publishers, 1992.) See Introduction

[edit] External links
What is Atonement? - Audio Sermon and Tract on atonement w/ Biblical References]
Historical Opinions as to the Nature of Christ's Atoning Death (Arminian/Wesleyan)
"The Doctrine of Atonement" from the Catholic Encyclopedia
"Atonement" from the Christian Cyclopedia (Lutheran)
Atonement Theories in Current Philosophical Theology from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Articles on the Atonement (Calvinist/Reformed)
The Atonement of Christ (Latter-day Saint)
Jewish Encyclopedia: Atonement
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement"
Categories: NPOV disputes | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles to be expanded since January 2007 | All articles to be expanded | Christian theology

ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsSign in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
File upload wizard
Contact Wikipedia
Make a donation
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this article
In other languages
Deutsch
Español
Interlingua
日本語
Svenska
中文

This page was last modified 01:29, 15 July 2007. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers