Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Colorado's marajuana prison inmates

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 12:46:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Though Colorado has deemed that it is no longer a criminal offence for its subjects to be imprisoned for growing and consuming small amounts of marijuana, thousands of people in Colorado are still behind bars for a crime that is no longer a crime.


Though there"s a certain cruel logic to this viewpoint, from a global perspective it is an extreme outlier. The United States is one of the only countries in the world that doesn"t guarantee what"s called "retroactive ameliorative relief" in sentencing. Meaning, when a law is passed to ease or eliminate punishments for a specific crime, those already convicted of that crime don"t necessarily receive the same relaxation or cessation of their sentence.

"The United States is one of only 22 countries that doesn"t guarantee retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing," says Amanda Solter, Project Director of Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law. "The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean. Even Russia provides this right."

http://www.takepart.com...
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.
A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.
My work here is, finally, done.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?
My work here is, finally, done.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 6:45:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

You think it's okay that men were raping their wives in the 1970's, Khaos? Government is not god retard.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 6:45:30 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

You think it's okay that men were raping their wives in the 1970's, Khaos? Government is not god retard.

What are you talking about?
Pre-1970, legally speaking, a wife could not be raped by her husband. So, pre-1970, a husband could rape his wife with impunity. Now, let's say 1972, it was realized that women have rights and even wives can say no to their husbands, thus making it illegal for a husband to force his wife to have sex. So, should the man, who in 1970, did the exact same thing as one in 1973, be arrested for an act he committed, but was not a crime at the time.

What does this have to do with my feeling of rape, god, or the government?

Would you prefer the example of "bath salts"? They were a legal product to sell in MN, but some time recently, they were prohibited. So, should those shop owners be retroactively prosecuted? If not, then why should the reverse be true of exoneration?
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 11:53:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

If it isn't a crime any more, then the government has obviously determined that they didn't have a good enough reason to have it as a crime. What reason would there be to not grant amnesty?

You assert that the punishment has to be carried out... yet you do not state the consequences of not doing so.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

Nobody is disputing this point. People have to know something is illegal in order for them to be able to actually follow the law.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 7:35:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 11:53:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

If it isn't a crime any more, then the government has obviously determined that they didn't have a good enough reason to have it as a crime. What reason would there be to not grant amnesty?
It's not how it ought to work.
The courts did their thing, so deal with it.

You assert that the punishment has to be carried out... yet you do not state the consequences of not doing so.
I didn't know I had to state consequences, but here goes:
If the amnesty is granted, simply because the crime is retroactively legal, then does the former criminal get their weed back? Do they get any other siezed property?

What about the dealers? Did they still commit a crime?

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

Nobody is disputing this point. People have to know something is illegal in order for them to be able to actually follow the law.

The logic is the exact same, just in reverse.
A technicality in the law =/= not knowing something is illegal, and regardless, it does not make it right. Raping your wife is not right, and was a legal exception, though, not expressly allowed, to my understanding.

Kind of like speeding to get to a hospital is still illegal, but allowed.
My work here is, finally, done.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 4:31:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 11:53:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

If it isn't a crime any more, then the government has obviously determined that they didn't have a good enough reason to have it as a crime. What reason would there be to not grant amnesty?

Yes, this appears to be true. Colorado, by granting it's subjects the freedom to sale and consume marajuana, is implicitly stating that the former restrictions on these freedoms were unjust. If that is the case then imprisoning people for these acts was also unjust. Those prisoners should therefore be released and allowed to sue the state for unlawful imprisonment since, by the state's own admission, they were unlawfully imprisoned.


You assert that the punishment has to be carried out... yet you do not state the consequences of not doing so.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

Nobody is disputing this point. People have to know something is illegal in order for them to be able to actually follow the law.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 4:38:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 4:31:30 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 11:53:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

If it isn't a crime any more, then the government has obviously determined that they didn't have a good enough reason to have it as a crime. What reason would there be to not grant amnesty?

Yes, this appears to be true. Colorado, by granting it's subjects the freedom to sale and consume marajuana, is implicitly stating that the former restrictions on these freedoms were unjust. If that is the case then imprisoning people for these acts was also unjust. Those prisoners should therefore be released and allowed to sue the state for unlawful imprisonment since, by the state's own admission, they were unlawfully imprisoned.

Then why not the reverse?
Explain yourself.
If someone gets off on a technicality, due to vague/outdated wording in a law, then why are they not retroactively guilty?



You assert that the punishment has to be carried out... yet you do not state the consequences of not doing so.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

Nobody is disputing this point. People have to know something is illegal in order for them to be able to actually follow the law.
My work here is, finally, done.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 5:10:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 4:38:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/6/2014 4:31:30 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 11:53:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

If it isn't a crime any more, then the government has obviously determined that they didn't have a good enough reason to have it as a crime. What reason would there be to not grant amnesty?

Yes, this appears to be true. Colorado, by granting it's subjects the freedom to sale and consume marajuana, is implicitly stating that the former restrictions on these freedoms were unjust. If that is the case then imprisoning people for these acts was also unjust. Those prisoners should therefore be released and allowed to sue the state for unlawful imprisonment since, by the state's own admission, they were unlawfully imprisoned.

Then why not the reverse?
Explain yourself.
If someone gets off on a technicality, due to vague/outdated wording in a law, then why are they not retroactively guilty?

I don't recognize a reformation of a law that has people in prisons - their lives ruined - as a technicality.

I don't see why the inverse wouldn't hold true - assuming that the lack of having a law was insane. If rape were legal under some regime and the regime finally came to its senses and outlawed it, the rapists who took advantagne of the regime's leniency should retroactivly be imprisoned.



You assert that the punishment has to be carried out... yet you do not state the consequences of not doing so.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

Nobody is disputing this point. People have to know something is illegal in order for them to be able to actually follow the law.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 7:57:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 4:38:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/6/2014 4:31:30 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 11:53:39 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

If it isn't a crime any more, then the government has obviously determined that they didn't have a good enough reason to have it as a crime. What reason would there be to not grant amnesty?

Yes, this appears to be true. Colorado, by granting it's subjects the freedom to sale and consume marajuana, is implicitly stating that the former restrictions on these freedoms were unjust. If that is the case then imprisoning people for these acts was also unjust. Those prisoners should therefore be released and allowed to sue the state for unlawful imprisonment since, by the state's own admission, they were unlawfully imprisoned.

Then why not the reverse?
Explain yourself.
If someone gets off on a technicality, due to vague/outdated wording in a law, then why are they not retroactively guilty?

Because they are different situations. In one the law does not exist. How can anyone be expected to follow all laws that could possibly exist in the future, but which don't exist now?

You assert that the punishment has to be carried out... yet you do not state the consequences of not doing so.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?

Nobody is disputing this point. People have to know something is illegal in order for them to be able to actually follow the law.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:14:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 12:46:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
thousands of people in Colorado are still behind bars for a crime that is no longer a crime.

Can you find some good statistics on this? I live in Denver and I can't. Colorado is one of 14 states in which jail is not a potential sentence for simple possession of marijuana. I'm sure that some people are jailed for parole violation. I'm sure many people are jailed for manufacture and distribution, but since none of these people were licensed by the state, they are still in violation of current laws (sentences for manufacture and distribution violations have not been repealed or reduced since legalization and have been much more strictly enforced than before Medical Marijuana legalization). I can't find a good number for Colorado citizens incarcerated for simple possession.

"The United States is one of only 22 countries that does not guarantee retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing," says Amanda Solter, Project Director of Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law. "The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean. Even Russia provides this right."

I agree that this is undemocratic. The theories supporting incarceration in a democratic state are generally about civil protection and rehabilitation. In theory, we jail people who are a public danger or we jail people while we try to modify their criminal behavior. In practice, we use jail as a punishment and particularly as a warehouse for the mentally ill and socially undesirable. In practice, jail is particularly used as a tool of low-grade segregation. In Illinois, for example, one study found that a black person was 8 times as likely to be incarcerated as a white person for identical crimes in similar circumstance. One of the principle reason marijuana was made illegal 75 years ago was because it had fallen out of favor as a drug of choice among the white upper and middle class just as it became popular among blacks in the cities. Marijuana was an effective tool for targeting poor minorities. With the major advancements in the effectiveness and strength of marijuana, the upper and middle class have embraced it again as a drug of choice so the laws will have to change.

Ameliorative relief is democratic because it stands by the principle of citizenship: all men are endowed with the right to liberty. Democracies are supposed to guarantee liberty except where the liberties of other citizens are infringed. When the law changes to decriminalize a behavior, the state can no longer argue that citizens must be protected from that behavior, nor does the state have any reason to wish to reform a behavior that is not criminal. Therefore, when the state retains those people whose violations are no longer criminal the message is that citizens may be detained for only displeasing the state.

If Colorado is truly of Coloradoans, by Coloradoans, and for Coloradoans and Coloradoans are overwhelmingly opposed to incarceration for marijuana, then those in jail must be made free to reflect the will of the people. When those citizens are held captive after the laws have been struck, the State of Colorado sends a message to her people: defy us at your peril.

Would it be just to continue to jail a runaway slave after emancipation? No, that man was only exercising his natural rights in spite of tyranny. How is any other law or freedom different? Those who smoked pot in Colorado before legalization were simply exercising their natural rights before the state recognized them- they must not be jailed for more forward-looking and independent minded than the State.
AskVaughan
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:19:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 12:46:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Though Colorado has deemed that it is no longer a criminal offence for its subjects to be imprisoned for growing and consuming small amounts of marijuana, thousands of people in Colorado are still behind bars for a crime that is no longer a crime.


Though there"s a certain cruel logic to this viewpoint, from a global perspective it is an extreme outlier. The United States is one of the only countries in the world that doesn"t guarantee what"s called "retroactive ameliorative relief" in sentencing. Meaning, when a law is passed to ease or eliminate punishments for a specific crime, those already convicted of that crime don"t necessarily receive the same relaxation or cessation of their sentence.

"The United States is one of only 22 countries that doesn"t guarantee retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing," says Amanda Solter, Project Director of Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law. "The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean. Even Russia provides this right."

http://www.takepart.com...

Short and sweet: if possession of marijuana was the only crime committed (no murder, theft, DUI, ect.) in association with the drug, then yes they should be released but on probation and the record should still show that they committed the crime while it was illegal.
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 9:29:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fact: About 750,000 people are arrested every year for marijuana offenses in the U.S. There's a lot of variation across states in what happens next. Not all arrests lead to prosecutions, and relatively few people prosecuted and convicted of simple possession end up in jail. Most are fined or are placed into community supervision. About 40,000 inmates of state and federal prison have a current conviction involving marijuana, and about half of them are in for marijuana offenses alone; most of these were involved in distribution. Less than one percent are in for possession alone.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com...
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:01:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 7:57:21 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/6/2014 4:38:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then why not the reverse?
Explain yourself.
If someone gets off on a technicality, due to vague/outdated wording in a law, then why are they not retroactively guilty?

Because they are different situations. In one the law does not exist. How can anyone be expected to follow all laws that could possibly exist in the future, but which don't exist now?

Let's use this concrete example:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov...

I used this law to excuse myself out of a ticket because I was at a stoplight.
Now, it clearly violated the spirit of the law, to be buckled while on the road, but due to its wording, I got off on a technicality.

So, why should I not be issued a fine for violating the law, when I clearly violated the intent of the law, if and when they amend the wording?

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting these people should not be pardoned. I am saying that the judicial system needs to fulfill the punishment that has been set forth, and just because something an illegal act is now legal, does not void the punishment automatically.

Another example is hunting endangered species, like wolves in my area.
Should the hunter who, three years ago hunted wolves and was fined $2,000, be paid back because now hunting wolves is legal?
Did he not commit a crime?

The reason the sentence is not vacated is in part due to the punishment of violating a crime. You break the law, society punishes you. Tell me why there should be no consequences for breaking the law, just because it was later changed?

Here's another example:
If I beat my wife, and she pressed charges and I was tried and went to jail, and after I was sentenced, she decided she didn't want to press charges, should I be forced to serve my sentence? No complaint = no crime, after all.
My work here is, finally, done.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:44:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 9:14:52 PM, Oromagi wrote:
At 1/5/2014 12:46:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
thousands of people in Colorado are still behind bars for a crime that is no longer a crime.

Can you find some good statistics on this? I live in Denver and I can't. Colorado is one of 14 states in which jail is not a potential sentence for simple possession of marijuana. I'm sure that some people are jailed for parole violation. I'm sure many people are jailed for manufacture and distribution, but since none of these people were licensed by the state, they are still in violation of current laws (sentences for manufacture and distribution violations have not been repealed or reduced since legalization and have been much more strictly enforced than before Medical Marijuana legalization). I can't find a good number for Colorado citizens incarcerated for simple possession.

"The United States is one of only 22 countries that does not guarantee retroactive ameliorative relief in sentencing," says Amanda Solter, Project Director of Human Rights and Criminal Sentencing Reform Project for the University of San Francisco School of Law. "The only other countries that do this are places like Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, South Sudan, and a handful of countries in the Caribbean. Even Russia provides this right."

I agree that this is undemocratic. The theories supporting incarceration in a democratic state are generally about civil protection and rehabilitation. In theory, we jail people who are a public danger or we jail people while we try to modify their criminal behavior. In practice, we use jail as a punishment and particularly as a warehouse for the mentally ill and socially undesirable. In practice, jail is particularly used as a tool of low-grade segregation. In Illinois, for example, one study found that a black person was 8 times as likely to be incarcerated as a white person for identical crimes in similar circumstance. One of the principle reason marijuana was made illegal 75 years ago was because it had fallen out of favor as a drug of choice among the white upper and middle class just as it became popular among blacks in the cities. Marijuana was an effective tool for targeting poor minorities. With the major advancements in the effectiveness and strength of marijuana, the upper and middle class have embraced it again as a drug of choice so the laws will have to change.

Ameliorative relief is democratic because it stands by the principle of citizenship: all men are endowed with the right to liberty. Democracies are supposed to guarantee liberty except where the liberties of other citizens are infringed. When the law changes to decriminalize a behavior, the state can no longer argue that citizens must be protected from that behavior, nor does the state have any reason to wish to reform a behavior that is not criminal. Therefore, when the state retains those people whose violations are no longer criminal the message is that citizens may be detained for only displeasing the state.

If Colorado is truly of Coloradoans, by Coloradoans, and for Coloradoans and Coloradoans are overwhelmingly opposed to incarceration for marijuana, then those in jail must be made free to reflect the will of the people. When those citizens are held captive after the laws have been struck, the State of Colorado sends a message to her people: defy us at your peril.

Would it be just to continue to jail a runaway slave after emancipation? No, that man was only exercising his natural rights in spite of tyranny. How is any other law or freedom different? Those who smoked pot in Colorado before legalization were simply exercising their natural rights before the state recognized them- they must not be jailed for more forward-looking and independent minded than the State.

Very well put (assuming that democracy is a legitimate form of government.)
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 10:08:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 8:01:25 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/6/2014 7:57:21 PM, drhead wrote:
At 1/6/2014 4:38:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then why not the reverse?
Explain yourself.
If someone gets off on a technicality, due to vague/outdated wording in a law, then why are they not retroactively guilty?

Because they are different situations. In one the law does not exist. How can anyone be expected to follow all laws that could possibly exist in the future, but which don't exist now?

Let's use this concrete example:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov...

I used this law to excuse myself out of a ticket because I was at a stoplight.
Now, it clearly violated the spirit of the law, to be buckled while on the road, but due to its wording, I got off on a technicality.

So, why should I not be issued a fine for violating the law, when I clearly violated the intent of the law, if and when they amend the wording?

Without knowing exactly how you are exempted from this law by being at a stoplight, I cannot tell why. That would require further explanation. However, if a reasonable interpretation of the law as it existed then could yield the result of you being not guilty, then the law at the time of the offense is obviously what should be used.

Of course, this would also raise issues with the practicality of finding every individual who got off on a technicality and collecting money from them.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting these people should not be pardoned. I am saying that the judicial system needs to fulfill the punishment that has been set forth, and just because something an illegal act is now legal, does not void the punishment automatically.

Another example is hunting endangered species, like wolves in my area.
Should the hunter who, three years ago hunted wolves and was fined $2,000, be paid back because now hunting wolves is legal?
Did he not commit a crime?

The reason the sentence is not vacated is in part due to the punishment of violating a crime. You break the law, society punishes you. Tell me why there should be no consequences for breaking the law, just because it was later changed?

Endangerment of species is a time sensitive issue. There can be a valid reason or current condition that justifies the law, and then the condition requiring it can go away later. Not everything is like this. I can guarantee that simple drug use is more or less the same that it has always been.

Here's another example:
If I beat my wife, and she pressed charges and I was tried and went to jail, and after I was sentenced, she decided she didn't want to press charges, should I be forced to serve my sentence? No complaint = no crime, after all.

The ability to rescind a complaint is something I would support.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 11:40:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

Except that it's exactly that.

A legal act that was committed before it was criminalized is not a crime.

Why is this justified?
In the 1970s or so, it was decided that a wife COULD be raped by her husband.
So, should a husband who raped his wife in 1970 be charged, since he committed a crime?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 11:44:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 11:40:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

Except that it's exactly that.

What I mean is that the judicial system doesn't/shouldn't do this automatically.
The governor can pardon anyone he sees fit, for any reason, be it an unjust law, too severe a punishment, or the act is now legal. That is the escape valve.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 11:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's a good example.
Let's say that I made $10K each year for the last ten years, and I knowingly never filed a tax return. So, I go to prison for tax evasion. (I am aware this is unlikely to happen, given the low amount of taxes owed, but look past it)

Now, in the next few years, I am certain that one who makes $10K will not be required to file a return. So, at this point, should I be let out of prison?
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 11:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can a governer pardon a federal crime? And if so, can the president overrule it (if he so chooses)?

Colorado may have said that it is not a crime, but it is still a federal crime within the state (it is just that there are very few federal police officers compared to state).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 12:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 11:44:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/7/2014 11:40:25 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:28:04 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/5/2014 1:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
What is your point?
A decriminalized crime that was a crime when committed is still a crime.

What's the justification for this?
The same as below.
It was a crime at the time, therefore there is the rogue attitude, and there is the punishment that was decided, and must be carried out.

Now, if the governor wants to pardon them, that's his business.
But the fact that it is now legal is not grounds (except via pardon) to let them off.

Except that it's exactly that.

What I mean is that the judicial system doesn't/shouldn't do this automatically.
The governor can pardon anyone he sees fit, for any reason, be it an unjust law, too severe a punishment, or the act is now legal. That is the escape valve.

You say that. But the whim of one official clearly isn't enough. The state has admitted that X law was unjust and has (thankfully) decided not to continue to unnecessarily ruin people's lives. If you don't see how it's contradictory not to rectify (as best as possible) the lives that are still being ruined then I'm not sure what to say.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 12:03:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 12:00:06 AM, Noumena wrote:


You say that. But the whim of one official clearly isn't enough. The state has admitted that X law was unjust and has (thankfully) decided not to continue to unnecessarily ruin people's lives. If you don't see how it's contradictory not to rectify (as best as possible) the lives that are still being ruined then I'm not sure what to say.

Are you suggesting that the drup kingpins get their ill-gotten gains back, too?
Do we, as a society, just ignore that people wantonly broke the law?
My work here is, finally, done.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 3:43:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 12:03:43 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/8/2014 12:00:06 AM, Noumena wrote:


You say that. But the whim of one official clearly isn't enough. The state has admitted that X law was unjust and has (thankfully) decided not to continue to unnecessarily ruin people's lives. If you don't see how it's contradictory not to rectify (as best as possible) the lives that are still being ruined then I'm not sure what to say.

Are you suggesting that the drup kingpins get their ill-gotten gains back, too?

Have drug kingpins done nothing but recreationally smoke pot?

Do we, as a society, just ignore that people wantonly broke the law?

For this law, abso-f'cking-lutely.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:42:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:19:01 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Would you prefer the example of "bath salts"? They were a legal product to sell in MN, but some time recently, they were prohibited. So, should those shop owners be retroactively prosecuted? If not, then why should the reverse be true of exoneration?
At the time you commit the act, you were informed by the State that it would take action. The action was unjustified, and there should be an executive pardon, but this is probably not true of all things to the extent that a release should be formalized as a legal guarantee for all revoked laws. Some things might as a practical matter criminal prosecution at one time and not at other times, yet the one in jail is still the one who did it at the bad time. Pot is not one of those things, and I'm not sure what those things might be in reality (breaking an embargo with a country due to its temporary state of genocidal dictatorship, perhaps?), pot should have always been legal, but this is not ipso facto true of the logical structure your proposed guarantee creates, it's content specific.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
absorbmore
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:00:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 12:03:43 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/8/2014 12:00:06 AM, Noumena wrote:


You say that. But the whim of one official clearly isn't enough. The state has admitted that X law was unjust and has (thankfully) decided not to continue to unnecessarily ruin people's lives. If you don't see how it's contradictory not to rectify (as best as possible) the lives that are still being ruined then I'm not sure what to say.

Are you suggesting that the drup kingpins get their ill-gotten gains back, too?
Do we, as a society, just ignore that people wantonly broke the law?

This reply is not directed at Khaos_Mage. It is for everyone else who is participating in these discussions. I wanted to point out that people who respond this way, in any discussion, have no interest in listening to others points of view. It is easy to identify these people. They usually respond with a worse case scenario in the hopes that they will be able to use fear to support their argument. They also have a very hard time expressing the topics that they agree with you on. Lastly they have a tendency to ask ridiculous questions instead of addressing others opinions or concerns. I feel the world would be more productive if we all were able to identify these obstacles of progress.

To Khaos_Mage: This is just an hypothetical example of how you can contribute your opinion more productively. Please adjust if it does not reflect your opinion.

"While I see that our opinions differ on this issue I respect your opinion as I hope you do mine. I agree that we should release these people from prison but would hate to see a situation where we are trying to rectify all things resulting from this change in the law. Similar to Reparations for Slavery. If these concerns I have are addressed I would think that we could come to an agreement."
An agreement is the best way to end a debate. Try it sometime
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 8:19:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 3:43:04 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/8/2014 12:03:43 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/8/2014 12:00:06 AM, Noumena wrote:


You say that. But the whim of one official clearly isn't enough. The state has admitted that X law was unjust and has (thankfully) decided not to continue to unnecessarily ruin people's lives. If you don't see how it's contradictory not to rectify (as best as possible) the lives that are still being ruined then I'm not sure what to say.

Are you suggesting that the drup kingpins get their ill-gotten gains back, too?

Have drug kingpins done nothing but recreationally smoke pot?
Are people who only had pot for recreational and personal use the people in jail?
Regardless of who is in jail, is it your contention that the state of Colorado owes every single drug bust (for those with recreational personal amounts) their weed back, going back 50 years?

Forget the pragmatism about it, but is that what ought to happen on principle?
I mean, why are only the people who are behind bars receiving absolution from their punishment, but not the person who just bought $80 worth of weed two weeks ago, and got busted and sentenced to probation?

Do we, as a society, just ignore that people wantonly broke the law?

For this law, abso-f'cking-lutely.
Why this law, and not others?
Why are the people who broke the law exempt from the consequences their actions allowed (e.g. loss of tax revenue from illegal operations, increased gang violence)?

Then the jury should have nullified.
The legislator should never have passed it.
The governor should vetoed it.

These are the protections from prosecution from unjust laws.
If they fail, then take your punishment for your civil disobedience like a man.

And, just to be clear, in this particular case, I do think the governer should pardon all non-violent drug offenders. However, my point has been (and maybe lost due to communication) that this release should not ever be automatic.
My work here is, finally, done.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:11:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Reminds me of the story back in the 19somethings or another where an ambitious guy smuggled the first airplane and couldn't be convicted of smuggling a motor vehicle because airplanes were new or something. He got off without a crime.

The Next guy though, he wasn't lucky, cuz they had a law for it by then or something.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 1:30:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 11:47:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Here's a good example.
Let's say that I made $10K each year for the last ten years, and I knowingly never filed a tax return. So, I go to prison for tax evasion. (I am aware this is unlikely to happen, given the low amount of taxes owed, but look past it)

Now, in the next few years, I am certain that one who makes $10K will not be required to file a return. So, at this point, should I be let out of prison?

That's another time-sensitive issue. If everyone didn't pay their taxes for one year, but paid double next year, the state would end up spending more due to interest, which is why it would be important to pay taxes on time. At the time, your actions caused harm. If, at some point, people don't have to file a return if they make $10K, then that means that the state knows that this will happen and expects it, and presumably has a plan to deal with it.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian