SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The state of California legalised recreational cannabis use in November 2016, and it will become legal state-wide on Monday. That means anyone 21 and older will be able to buy cannabis from a licensed store, known as a dispensary.
The resentencing provisions of Proposition 64, California's cannabis legalisation initiative, have been in effect since last year, said Eunisses Hernandez, a policy coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance, a group working to end drug prohibition. But few people know about the resentencing provision, which applies to people who are currently imprisoned or out on parole, Hernandez told Al Jazeera.
Individuals who apply for resentencing may be released from prison or have the charge on their criminal record reduced. Felonies may be lowered to misdemeanours, misdemeanours to infractions, or infractions to an outright dismissal of charges.
Resentencing will likely affect thousands of lives, since at least 500,000 marijuana-related arrests have been recorded in California over the last decade, Hernandez said.
[...] Several groups in the US have urged authorities to include changes to drug-related criminal offences in their efforts to legalise recreational cannabis.
Proponents of cannabis legalisation feared that allowing people with past drug convictions to get out of jail or reduce their sentences would lower the chance that the laws would pass at all. "There was, in many cases, a reluctance to bring this up," he told Al Jazeera.
Today, opponents of resentencing provisions often argue that retrying these cases puts "a very, very large potential burden on the courts", Sterling said.
Law enforcement officers may also contend that a guilty plea to cannabis possession may follow the dropping of more serious charges, such as possession with the intent to distribute - "and so to make a blanket change without looking at all of the underlying facts of the arrest would mean that more serious offenders would have their records expunged", Sterling said.
Ultimately, Sterling said it is most important to make sure people who may be affected by a resentencing law are aware that the law exists in the first place.
"The key thing, I think, is the ability for people to re-enter the economy and society free of those encumbrances," he said. "We would also say they are eligible to vote, they are eligible for jury duty, that all of their civil rights are restored."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:22PM (3 children)
Your conclusion here is suspect to me.
The law can be unjust. If an unjust law is broken, it doesn't follow to me that there cannot be a consideration of pardoning the offenders. The fact that the law evolves is proof that society's (and the law's) notion of "what is just?" changes over time. That's not to say that EVERY TIME a law changes, it's indicative that the notion of "what is just?" has changed in a way that should naturally pardon all past offenders. But to argue it's NEVER appropriate is questionable.
To take an extreme example, should runaway slaves have been imprisoned under the Fugitive Slave Act [wikipedia.org] after the abolition of slavery? After all, they broke the law as it existed at the time. Should the members of the underground railroad who helped them escape? That was illegal too.
Taking a more recent and less extreme example, in the 90's the federal government created mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses that were 100x more harsh than similar offenses involving powder cocaine. Part of the problem seen in these guidelines was that the racial mix of the users of the two substances were very different - crack offenders were predominantly African American, while powder cocaine offenders were primarily white. Critics have argued this was not coincidental, and are evidence of racial bias in the law. The Fair Sentencing Act [wikipedia.org] reduced (but did not come close to eliminating) these disparities. Should offenders sentenced under the earlier mandatory minimums be re-sentenced [aclu.org] under the new guidelines? After all, they were sentenced under the law as it existed at the time of their offense.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:36PM (2 children)
I appreciate your sincerity, but this is a sarcastic conversation.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday January 03 2018, @06:39PM (1 child)
I'd like to believe that's true. I see no indication in AC's post I responded to that this was sarcasm.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday January 03 2018, @07:15PM
Text forums are weird that way...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..