California ordered to release tens of thousands of prisoners

[weemadando]

Salon.com

Hey, maybe tens of thousands of non violent possession of marijuana and other BS war on drug victims can be released.

Wait, no. That'll be too soft on drugs.

Release the white collar criminals!

[Kamakazie Sith]

Considering simple possession of marijuana won't land you in prison your hopes are already fulfilled. Rejoice!

However, possession over a certain amount of possession of any amount with intent to sell will get you put in prison. So, hopefully those people will be released. Logically, you'd think they'd be at the top of the list. However, like you said that might appear like they're too soft on drugs.

[Mr Bean]

Considering simple possession of marijuana won't land you in prison your hopes are already fulfilled. Rejoice!

However, possession over a certain amount of possession of any amount with intent to sell will get you put in prison. So, hopefully those people will be released. Logically, you'd think they'd be at the top of the list. However, like you said that might appear like they're too soft on drugs.

Except the definition of intent to sell is so lose that being rich and smoking pot can land you in jail, also more than one ounce (And going by past experience from room-mates if they had less than an ounce on them it was because they were in the process of smoking it) still can land you six months in jail in California.

Also second offense for 1 ounce or more is a possible four years in jail Sith. And hey that's okay because there's also people in jail for crack, Heron, plus LSD and club drugs (Ecstasy) can all land you at least two years as well.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I love it when pro-drug people say "non-violent" as if that means it's not a real crime.

But, this one takes the cake. It's perfectly fine to let convicts go when it's non-violent drug crimes, but how dare they let non-violent embezzler out! Non-violent securities fraud? Rot in prison.

Turns out whether something is violent or not is completely irrelevant. Weird.

I think the current term is victimless crime. However, yes those people that use the term non-violent miss the big picture. Though I would argue that those that abuse drugs do leave victims - mostly their families that watch them waste away. However, you could say the same for alcoholics and they don't get arrested for being alcoholics so...

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except the definition of intent to sell is so lose that being rich and smoking pot can land you in jail, also more than one ounce (And going by past experience from room-mates if they had less than an ounce on them it was because they were in the process of smoking it) still can land you six months in jail in California.

Also second offense for 1 ounce or more is a possible four years in jail Sith. And hey that's okay because there's also people in jail for crack, Heron, plus LSD and club drugs (Ecstasy) can all land you at least two years as well.

I agree. I've never been a supporter of those laws that make above a certain amount automatically mean they intended to sell. I think it should be something more like packaged in individual baggies, possession of scales, etc in addition to a certain amount.

Also, according to several websites possession of less than one ounce is an infraction and is not punishable with jail time on the first offense - though I am unable to find anything that supports your claim that future violations of possession under one ounce will net you jail time. Possession of over one ounce is a misdemeanor and punishable by a maximum of six months in jail. (NOTE - Jail is not prison)

There are enhancements for having possession on school grounds, etc.

Sources;
http://www.mycaliforniadefenselawyer.co ... ossession/
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witne ... etext.html
(I did skim over some of the material but I'm pretty sure there is nothing discussing enhancements for future violations.

Simple possession of the other drugs you mention are felonies which will earn you prison time.

Also, I might be misreading your tone but your sarcasm leads me to believe that you think I support the drug laws in the US. So, I have to ask. Do you think this?

[Mr Bean]

I think the current term is victimless crime. However, yes those people that use the term non-violent miss the big picture. Though I would argue that those that abuse drugs do leave victims - mostly their families that watch them waste away. However, you could say the same for alcoholics and they don't get arrested for being alcoholics so...

Which is the point, when you pick up kid doing coke on the street corner then put him in jail for five years your not really helping him or society. Or a current example a girl caught with two Oxoycodne of her mothers who got four years in jail at age 19.

*Edit by my statement you should have got my intent Sith pointing out pot smokers are not the be all end all of drug users, reminding you sir that possession of drugs other than Pot in Cali can still land you two to five years in jail for possession period.
*Edit 2
And a reminder that law was changed recently, they did not let out those charged with and in jail for possession prior to that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Which is the point, when you pick up kid doing coke on the street corner then put him in jail for five years your not really helping him or society. Or a current example a girl caught with two Oxoycodne of her mothers who got four years in jail at age 19.

I agree, you aren't helping. Though just a quick nitpick. Possession of coke is a felony and thus upon conviction would put you in prison. Not jail.

I think something should only be a crime if it can be shown to cause measurable harm to others and then it also needs to be consistent with other legal things. In other words I'd decriminalize marijuana just because alcohol is legal. Having one illegal and the other legal does not make any sense.

Cops that are hardcore drug enforcers bother me because they miss the big picture. I remember an episode of cops where this officer conducts a traffic stop on a 19 year old. The officer is able to smell marijuana and eventually finds what I would call a birthday amount of marijuana. He proceeds to arrest that 19 year old for felony possession. (in the state that this episode was film possessing over a certain amount is a felony) Now keep in mind that officers do not have discretion when it comes to felonies, but it really bothered me that a 19 year old was going down for a felony. If I'd been in his place I would have probably confiscated the marijuana and then let them go.

[Zaune]

Cops that are hardcore drug enforcers bother me because they miss the big picture. I remember an episode of cops where this officer conducts a traffic stop on a 19 year old. The officer is able to smell marijuana and eventually finds what I would call a birthday amount of marijuana. He proceeds to arrest that 19 year old for felony possession. (in the state that this episode was film possessing over a certain amount is a felony) Now keep in mind that officers do not have discretion when it comes to felonies, but it really bothered me that a 19 year old was going down for a felony. If I'd been in his place I would have probably confiscated the marijuana and then let them go.

And if I'd been in the 19 year-old's place, I'd have panicked and gone for a weapon. I realise that many if not most US states are probably somewhat saner about this than the UK, but I'm guessing that any sort of felony conviction is really not good for one's future employment prospects?

[Kamakazie Sith]

And if I'd been in the 19 year-old's place, I'd have panicked and gone for a weapon. I realise that many if not most US states are probably somewhat saner about this than the UK, but I'm guessing that any sort of felony conviction is really not good for one's future employment prospects?

Well, there are options for first time drug offenses. I didn't consider this until now actually, but it's very unlikely that they would have convicted her with felony possession. They likely pled it down to a misdemeanor...I know the US has a rough reputation on drugs but there is a significant grey area that is rarely exposed to the public.

That being said. I'm concerned for you. You would have panicked and gone for a weapon... Then what? Would you assault the officer? Murder the officer? Would you then be on the run for the rest of your life? More likely you'd be shot to death by the officer...

So, I wonder did I misinterpret what you were saying?

[Wing Commander MAD]

Cops that are hardcore drug enforcers bother me because they miss the big picture. I remember an episode of cops where this officer conducts a traffic stop on a 19 year old. The officer is able to smell marijuana and eventually finds what I would call a birthday amount of marijuana. He proceeds to arrest that 19 year old for felony possession. (in the state that this episode was film possessing over a certain amount is a felony) Now keep in mind that officers do not have discretion when it comes to felonies, but it really bothered me that a 19 year old was going down for a felony. If I'd been in his place I would have probably confiscated the marijuana and then let them go.

And if I'd been in the 19 year-old's place, I'd have panicked and gone for a weapon. I realise that many if not most US states are probably somewhat saner about this than the UK, but I'm guessing that any sort of felony conviction is really not good for one's future employment prospects?

No, it's generally not good, especially I'd imagine in a market like this. That said unemployed is prefferable to being dead which is what you'd likely be for going after a weapon at a traffic stop. IIRC most cops that are killed on duty are killed during traffic stops, so they are justifiably more cuatious/nervous during them.

[Zaune]

You would have panicked and gone for a weapon... Then what? Would you assault the officer? Murder the officer? Would you then be on the run for the rest of your life? More likely you'd be shot to death by the officer...

So, I wonder did I misinterpret what you were saying?

Have a read of this blog post from a British magistrate for some insight into just how thoroughly screwed anyone with even a fairly minor criminal conviction is in this country.
Again, maybe US law is saner, but over here your future prospects of legitimate employment are roughly the same whether you're convicted of possession with intent to supply or armed robbery. It doesn't even matter that much if your employer insists on an enhanced criminal record check, convictions stay on your record for so long (ten years if you only got six months to two and a half years, life for anything longer) that by the time they're "spent" you've been out of work for so long that no employer will touch you with a ten-foot pole anyway.

No, it's generally not good, especially I'd imagine in a market like this. That said unemployed is preferable to being dead which is what you'd likely be for going after a weapon at a traffic stop. IIRC most cops that are killed on duty are killed during traffic stops, so they are justifiably more cautious/nervous during them.

You'd be truly amazed how hard a couple of years being unemployed, sending dozens of applications out each month to no avail, can make it to agree with that sentiment. Add the prospect of a felony conviction to an already mediocre resume and/or a long period out of work and suddenly you've got a lot less to lose.

[aerius]

I love it when pro-drug people say "non-violent" as if that means it's not a real crime.

But, this one takes the cake. It's perfectly fine to let convicts go when it's non-violent drug crimes, but how dare they let non-violent embezzler out! Non-violent securities fraud? Rot in prison.

Turns out whether something is violent or not is completely irrelevant. Weird.

I think the current term is victimless crime. However, yes those people that use the term non-violent miss the big picture. Though I would argue that those that abuse drugs do leave victims - mostly their families that watch them waste away. However, you could say the same for alcoholics and they don't get arrested for being alcoholics so...

And embezzlers and people who commit securities fraud also leave a ton of victims behind. A business owner who embezzles company funds and causes his business to go bankrupt does a hell of a lot more harm than some drug user wasting away in his apartment. The guy who does insider trading and securities fraud costs pension funds and retail investors a shitload of money, the bigger players such as investment bank prop desks have bankrupted entire counties and screwed up the lives of everyone living in those areas.

Nearly every crime leaves a victim of some sort somewhere. Question is how much harm is actually done, and is it worth it to police the action. For a lot of stuff, it probably ain't worth it.

[Simon_Jester]

You'd be truly amazed how hard a couple of years being unemployed, sending dozens of applications out each month to no avail, can make it to agree with that sentiment. Add the prospect of a felony conviction to an already mediocre resume and/or a long period out of work and suddenly you've got a lot less to lose.

I hope I understand you correctly-

That while this is an irrational decision to make, it is one that a certain number of people are likely to make, thinking that they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb?

If so, then I think that's always been the problem with "use harsh punishments to deter criminals:" if the harsh punishments ruin your life, and are applied to even minor crimes, it promotes recidivism and the commission of even greater crimes in an attempt to escape prosecution for lesser ones.

[Dalton]

Cops that are hardcore drug enforcers bother me because they miss the big picture. I remember an episode of cops where this officer conducts a traffic stop on a 19 year old. The officer is able to smell marijuana and eventually finds what I would call a birthday amount of marijuana. He proceeds to arrest that 19 year old for felony possession. (in the state that this episode was film possessing over a certain amount is a felony) Now keep in mind that officers do not have discretion when it comes to felonies, but it really bothered me that a 19 year old was going down for a felony. If I'd been in his place I would have probably confiscated the marijuana and then let them go.

Just a note on this. Do you know if he'd react the same way if he wasn't being recorded for a show?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Cops that are hardcore drug enforcers bother me because they miss the big picture. I remember an episode of cops where this officer conducts a traffic stop on a 19 year old. The officer is able to smell marijuana and eventually finds what I would call a birthday amount of marijuana. He proceeds to arrest that 19 year old for felony possession. (in the state that this episode was film possessing over a certain amount is a felony) Now keep in mind that officers do not have discretion when it comes to felonies, but it really bothered me that a 19 year old was going down for a felony. If I'd been in his place I would have probably confiscated the marijuana and then let them go.

Just a note on this. Do you know if he'd react the same way if he wasn't being recorded for a show?

That's a good point. I can't say because I don't know that officer. Due to the amount of drugs and the interaction being recorded he could have felt like he had no choice.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Have a read of this blog post from a British magistrate for some insight into just how thoroughly screwed anyone with even a fairly minor criminal conviction is in this country.
Again, maybe US law is saner, but over here your future prospects of legitimate employment are roughly the same whether you're convicted of possession with intent to supply or armed robbery. It doesn't even matter that much if your employer insists on an enhanced criminal record check, convictions stay on your record for so long (ten years if you only got six months to two and a half years, life for anything longer) that by the time they're "spent" you've been out of work for so long that no employer will touch you with a ten-foot pole anyway.

It's hard to say. If you are convicted of a felony it does seriously limit your career options. However, going for a weapon and doing whatever to a police officer seriously lowers your life options. Regardless, you make a good observation.

You'd be truly amazed how hard a couple of years being unemployed, sending dozens of applications out each month to no avail, can make it to agree with that sentiment. Add the prospect of a felony conviction to an already mediocre resume and/or a long period out of work and suddenly you've got a lot less to lose.

So, are you advocating privacy restrictions on criminal records? Though don't you think an employer has a right to know if he is hiring a person who has a history of theft, or violence?

If you're saying that people who have little options left will resort to violence then you're probably right. However, I remind you that these are choices that they made. In a way you're making an argument for life time lock up of "career criminals".

[SVPD]

And if I'd been in the 19 year-old's place, I'd have panicked and gone for a weapon. I realise that many if not most US states are probably somewhat saner about this than the UK, but I'm guessing that any sort of felony conviction is really not good for one's future employment prospects?

If you'd have panicked and gone for a weapon because you were being arrested.. you probably should not carry weapons with you. If you are lucky, that would have gotten you subdued. Unlucky, it would have gotten you felonious assault on a police officer or murder, or gotten you killed.

There are a lot of good arguments to be made in favor of drug legalization, but "people getting arrested for drug felonies might assault the police" isn't really one of them. Anyone getting arrested for any felony might assault the police. We accept that; it's part of the job. We also win quite a bit more often than we lose.

Yes, felonies are bad for your employment overall, but there are still ways to make a decent living especially if you're willing to go into business for yourself.

[weemadando]

More to the point: if you're the kind of short fused hyper aggressive idiot who'd shoot s cop over a possession bust, then chances are that you're a short fused hyper aggressive idiot who no one would want to hire anyway.

Problem solved.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I love it when pro-drug people say "non-violent" as if that means it's not a real crime.

But, this one takes the cake. It's perfectly fine to let convicts go when it's non-violent drug crimes, but how dare they let non-violent embezzler out! Non-violent securities fraud? Rot in prison.

Turns out whether something is violent or not is completely irrelevant. Weird.

I think the current term is victimless crime. However, yes those people that use the term non-violent miss the big picture. Though I would argue that those that abuse drugs do leave victims - mostly their families that watch them waste away. However, you could say the same for alcoholics and they don't get arrested for being alcoholics so...

The problem with drug offenses is that it really does depend so heavily on the drug. Take someone doing toad (yes, I know the joke, but I did used to keep the species most commonly used as a pet, so whatever), it depends on the toad. Someone extracting, drying and snorting Ollotis alvarius(Sonoran Desert Toad, they used to breed in my garden pond) toxin is far less likely to experience the joys of cardiac arrest than someone doing the same with a Rhinella marinus (Cane Toad). In fact, the probability is almost nil unless you have an allergic reaction to it (no, I have never done toad, I just know the properties of the toxin), and the hallucinations last for all of a minute and are relatively mild (fuzz guitar music, everything gets melty, might get mild synesthesia). The toxin basically makes predators trip balls, giving the toad time time escape.

For more... conventional drugs, the problems are because they are illegal. Take ecstasy for example. It gets cooked up in people's kitchens more often than not. That is not exactly precision chemistry. If you have ever taken an organic chemistry lab, you know that percent yield and purity in such ghetto operations is not exactly high. Most of the symptoms are not so bad. Apparently people get cuddly, want to have sex with Margaret Cho, and have conversations with their socks. Pot? Same deal.

The way the Controlled Substance Act defines its various "Schedules" is completely ridiculous. Pot for example has medical uses, and the potential for abuse is nebulously defined.

Instead of having reasonable medically based drug policy which treats drug users as--at worst--a person who has a psychological disorder in need of treatment, we have a brutal punitive system which creates the very conditions we use to justify the drug's illegality.

So, are you advocating privacy restrictions on criminal records? Though don't you think an employer has a right to know if he is hiring a person who has a history of theft, or violence?

Sure they do. Any background check should only reveal theft or particularly nasty violence though. If you got into a bar fight, it should not affect your employment prospects, neither should being caught with a couple grams of pot. Now, if you have a conviction for aggravated assault/battery, sure.

[Bakustra]

Also, the problem of society ostracizing felons and convicted criminals isn't something that can really be laid on the head of the police- it's rather the fault of the whole system and approach to crime in general by society. I mean, it's not like cops have some sort of greater vulnerability to the just-world fallacy than other people. While the problem of felons being encouraged into a life of crime by society is a real and gigantic one, it's one that mainly can be addressed through broader changes to society. Pointless gestures aren't going to do anything.

You'd be truly amazed how hard a couple of years being unemployed, sending dozens of applications out each month to no avail, can make it to agree with that sentiment. Add the prospect of a felony conviction to an already mediocre resume and/or a long period out of work and suddenly you've got a lot less to lose.

So, are you advocating privacy restrictions on criminal records? Though don't you think an employer has a right to know if he is hiring a person who has a history of theft, or violence?

If you're saying that people who have little options left will resort to violence then you're probably right. However, I remind you that these are choices that they made. In a way you're making an argument for life time lock up of "career criminals".

But on the same token, what if people have reformed and turned their life around? Should they be denied any opportunity for success because of mistakes they have learned from? I mean, the fact that we don't impose life sentences for most crimes suggest that we believe that it's possible to repent- but we also shut the supposed redeemed out of a hell of a lot. You recognize this, of course, but I think that this needed to be articulated more fully.

[aerius]

Sure they do. Any background check should only reveal theft or particularly nasty violence though. If you got into a bar fight, it should not affect your employment prospects, neither should being caught with a couple grams of pot. Now, if you have a conviction for aggravated assault/battery, sure.

Depends on the job, if you're hiring Mickey D toilet cleaners it doesn't matter if the guy's a convicted axe killer, but you don't want your customs agents feeding their habits and running drug rings from the postal facility. If a guy does drugs it's probably not a good idea to put him in a position where a crapload of drugs pass through his hands every day, at some point it's quite likely that some of it will get taken home or he just won't care that there are drugs going through the system.

As for bar fights, a couple of them in college, yeah, we can probably let that slide, but if you've been in a dozen of them or your still getting into them them in your 30s & 40s you almost certainly have a bunch of issues that would disqualify you from various jobs. You want a TSA agent or police officer who gets into bar fights every couple Fridays? Probably not.

[Shroom Man 777]

I wouldn't want a substance abuser working in a hospital and hoarding all the morphine.

[eyl]

But on the same token, what if people have reformed and turned their life around? Should they be denied any opportunity for success because of mistakes they have learned from? I mean, the fact that we don't impose life sentences for most crimes suggest that we believe that it's possible to repent- but we also shut the supposed redeemed out of a hell of a lot. You recognize this, of course, but I think that this needed to be articulated more fully.

I'm pretty sure you can apply here to have criminal record expunged - is there is a similiar mechanism in the US/UK?

[Zaune]

I hope I understand you correctly-

That while this is an irrational decision to make, it is one that a certain number of people are likely to make, thinking that they might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb?

If so, then I think that's always been the problem with "use harsh punishments to deter criminals:" if the harsh punishments ruin your life, and are applied to even minor crimes, it promotes recidivism and the commission of even greater crimes in an attempt to escape prosecution for lesser ones.

I wouldn't call it irrational to feel you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb in those circumstances, though I'd call it a few other things, but pretty much.

So, are you advocating privacy restrictions on criminal records? Though don't you think an employer has a right to know if he is hiring a person who has a history of theft, or violence?

If you're saying that people who have little options left will resort to violence then you're probably right. However, I remind you that these are choices that they made. In a way you're making an argument for life time lock up of "career criminals".

I have less of a problem with employers knowing than I do with them having no sense of proportion about them, but that's been covered in detail already.

If you'd have panicked and gone for a weapon because you were being arrested.. you probably should not carry weapons with you. If you are lucky, that would have gotten you subdued. Unlucky, it would have gotten you felonious assault on a police officer or murder, or gotten you killed.

You'll be pleased to know that I am fully aware of this, and have not only stopped carrying a deadly weapon as a security blanket but sought out professional help.

[Lonestar]

I'm pretty sure you can apply here to have criminal record expunged - is there is a similiar mechanism in the US/UK?

Yes. We have someone who took advantage of that on this board.