For the first time in American history, the son of a sitting president is being prosecuted on firearms charges — Hunter Biden. The allegations in this case, which began jury selection Tuesday, throw the spotlight on the wider ramifications of presidential remarks on the American legal system.
A .38-caliber Colt Cobra pistol that the younger Biden bought in 2018 is the subject of three criminal charges against him. He freely acknowledged that at the time of the purchase, he was struggling with a serious drug addiction. Two counts of lying on gun purchase documentation and one allegation of unlawful gun ownership had been filed against him.
Hunter Biden has resolutely denied these accusations, a position shared by his father, President Joe Biden, who has said in public that he believes his son is a recovered addict.
Although it makes emotional sense for the US President to defend his son, it also highlights important concerns about the impact of his remarks on the American judiciary. One way to see it is as an attempt to influence public opinion and, inadvertently, the legal system itself when the head of state makes unambiguous claims regarding the innocence of an accused person.
Such claims made by an incumbent president have weight and may compromise the objectivity that is necessary for the legal system. Beyond the gun accusations, Hunter Biden has other legal issues. Separate charges against him include tax evasion in California and corruption in connection with his transactions in China and Ukraine.
Even though he hasn’t been charged with any offenses pertaining to his international businesses, the combined impact of these accusations has certainly clouded his father’s reelection campaign.
Central to Hunter Biden’s defense is the background of his addiction and supposed rehabilitation. According to his defense team, Biden was living with a sober friend and had just finished an 11-day recovery program when he bought the revolver.
They argue that — crucial in determining whether he intentionally gave false information on the gun purchase application — he did not regard himself as a current user or addict. This subtle debate draws attention to how complicated addiction and recovery are and how well the legal definitions match individual views and medical facts.
But the larger issue — how can presidential remarks impact public and judicial perception — remains, notwithstanding the defense’s case. President Biden runs the danger of being perceived as a strong man trying to sway the outcome of justice, even as his claim of his son’s innocence may be regarded as that of a loving father protecting his kid. For Americans, this is really troubling in a very divisive political climate when public confidence in institutions — including the judiciary — is already low.
As expected, Republicans have responded to Hunter Biden’s legal problems by intensifying these accusations and frequently equating them with the legal problems of former President Donald Trump, who has just been found guilty of attempting to conceal alleged sex-related payments.
Republicans might be keen to turn the focus from Trump’s legal problems on the Biden family’s, using Hunter Biden’s case as the central theme in their story of misbehavior and corruption in the Biden administration. The politicized and divisive character of American politics today is highlighted by this political tactic, which turns court cases into political maneuverings.
Beyond the US, the Hunter Biden case provides a significant prism through which to look at the impact of presidential authority on the judiciary — a worry that is shared in the Philippines as well. The Philippines has acquired a judicial system based on American ideas, stressing the rule of law and judicial independence, as a former US vassal. The same difficulties with public perception and political influence do, however, also arise.
Particularly in well-publicized instances involving powerful people, the Philippine legal system has frequently come under fire for what is seen to be political meddling. The requirement of careful thought and moderation by those in authority to preserve the independence and integrity of the courts is highlighted by these dynamics.
Though natural, President Joe Biden’s public backing of his son highlights the careful balance needed to preserve judicial independence. Leadership in the Philippines may learn from this scenario and understand the possible effects of their public remarks on court cases. Retaining public confidence in the judiciary requires that all people be held to the same legal standards, irrespective of their political affiliation.