Is a commutation actually worse than a pardon?

A presidential pardon is a way to express that someone was wrongly convicted of a crime.

However, commuting someone's sentence states that he/she was rightly found guilty, but should not have to serve the totality of the sentence handed down.

In the case of Scooter Libby, President Bush is saying Libby shouldn't have to spend even a single day in prison for breaking the law.

Which is worse???

UPDATE: Great bit from the Washington Post's editorial on the subject:

We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible. ... Mr. Bush, while claiming to 'respect the jury's verdict,' failed to explain why he moved from 'excessive' to zero.

2nd UPDATE: The hits are coming quickly today. A great point from the New York Times:

Was the convicted felon Scooter Libby kept out of jail because the president was "worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell"?

Finally, Bill Scher from LiberalOasis takes apart Bush's argument that Libby's reputation is "forever damaged". Apparently, no Republican's reputation can be damaged enough to be denied work in future Republican administrations...

3rd UPDATE: A gem from George W. Bush's 1999 autobography, A Charge To Keep.

"I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair."

Which leads me to another point:

Bush deemed Libby's 30-month prison sentence "excessive", yet he presided over 153 executions during his 6-year term as Governor of Texas.

Chew on that for awhile...
- posted by Brian @ 10:09 AM