The example is a means of wrongful execution (sanction of private execution of those seen as politically undesirable by the leadership of the State.)

The example higher up the chain is of Abbot pardoning someone though. What execution are you referring to in the example?

IIUC what dragonwriter is saying is that by way of pardoning the murderer, Abbott is condoning the murder, making it in a sense a "private execution".

I think that logic is sufficiently sound, provided we know we are not being precise. I don't know enough about the case to say whether it actually applies here.

I haven't seen anything that clearly lays out Abbott's reasoning or intent, though I may very well have missed it.

Pardons aren't always condoning a person for the crime they were convicted of. The legal system is fallible and writing clear laws to handle ant scenario that comes up is impossible. A pardon can be used to free an individual who seems to have been wrongfully convicted but without sufficient proof or process for an appeal. It can also be used to free individuals who have been rehabilitated, or who the executive believes has learned from their crime and is ready to return to public life.

I have no idea if Abbott was motivates by anything like that or if it was more akin to jury nullification, but I wouldn't assume that a pardon can only mean that the elected official is condoning the crime itself.

I appreciate your taking the time to demonstrate that your arguments throughout this thread were not the product of naïveté, as I had originally suggested, but instead just tedious concern trolling. What motivates Abbot, as well as the murders he sanctions, judicially and extrajudicially, has been quite plainly stated by himself and those doing the killing. Instead of making pointless arguments in the abstract, familiarize yourself with the particulars.