In fact, part of accepting a pardon is accepting guilt. That can particularly be consequential if there is a civil case associated with the criminal charges. For example, if I'm charged with drunk driving and I run into someone's house, by accepting a pardon I have to admit that I'm guilty of drunk driving which the home owner can then use in their civil suit to extra money for the damage I caused.

This is part of the reason why people will sometimes not accept a pardon.

▲

rootusrootus 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> part of accepting a pardon is accepting guilt

Is that not a commonly misunderstood myth? You do not have to sign anything admitting guilt.

▲

8note 16 hours ago | parent [-]

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3...

different courts have said different things. the more recent courts have said it only removes the punishment

you were still found guilty, so the guilt is still there

	▲	rootusrootus 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That link breaks for me, but I suspect I know what you are referring to. That talk from the various courts seems mostly like rhetoric more than an establishment of legal precedent. It is all implied meaning, since indeed you do not need to affirmatively proclaim your own guilt in order to accept a pardon. You can just accept delivery and be done with it. Whether someone else imputes guilt from that is [mostly] their problem.
	▲	cogman10 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There's also a weird play with the prosecution. Like if a pardon is issued before trial, under normal circumstances the prosecutor will drop charges and the pardonee does not need to accept it. Further, a prosecutor won't go after charges when someone is pardoned. These are the cases where a pardon wouldn't imply guilt. But generally speaking, pardons happen after a conviction and not before. Accepting a pardon ends appeals.

▲

cassepipe 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IIRC it is why some people defending captain Dreyfus urged him not to accept a pardon