If marijuana was legalized federally, what would happen to everyone who is incarcerated because of its illegality?
Posted Oct 25, 2012, 10:09 AM UTC
2116
Gary Johnson has said that he would pardon all non-violent offenses.
11
Out of curiosity, wasn't this Ron Paul stance as well or is he simply in favor of ending prohibition?
2
I believe Ron Paul also supported this idea. This is a basic tenet of Libertarians; Quit filling our prisons with non-violent criminals, and quit expanding the rule of law, creating more criminals.
2
So no white collar criminals will ever see a jail cell. ..great idea. FYI Bernie Madoff stole the retirements of thousands of people. How many of them killed themselves? How many died because they couldn't afford care?
0
you're taking this a bit out of context; the statement is in regards to marijuana and drug offenses.
2
No, I'm not. You failed to realize the scope of your own statement and what it applies to.
-1
The scope of my statement is based on the conversation of marijuana-related crime. Madoff was not jailed for weed sales or consumption. If we were in r/criminaljustice or r/politics, then my statement could have pertained to white collar crimes, but we're in r/eldertrees talking about marijuana.
2
[deleted]
2
He was responding to the question in the title. You're a HugeJackass, bro.
2
I think that they should get preferential hiring status in the new agencies.
They do have verifiable experience.
1
they would rot in jail like the scumbag prisoners they are!
-8
I'm hoping that's sarcasm.
3
yup. It's cool, I was prepared to sacrifice the Karma for a joke that would only humor me.
7
It's amazing how few people understand sarcasm on the Internet. the exclaimation mark is the tip off, people!!!
0
It wouldn't have any effect in most cases unless we were talking about a court finding the prohibition in general unconstitutional; the vast majority of cannabis arrests and prosecutions occur at the state level, and changing the US Code wouldn't change that, although I suppose it's possible a particularly committed Congress could pull a reverse drinking age trick and deny highway funds to those states that won't play along.
For those that were prosecuted federally, it would depend on the way the law was drafted. It would only be retroactive if explicitly stated as such; the convicts would still have committed a valid offence at the time they were convicted. That being said, you'd probably have an upshot in pardons and clemency for those convicted exclusively of drug offences without any aggravating factors because it would be seen as unreasonable to keep people imprisoned for something completely legal.
People always ask me this question and I always responded that they did something that was illegal at that time, so I would guess that they would still be in jail. But what you're saying is that if prohibition becomes unconstitutional then they will probably be set free if it was only cannabis charges?
It'd depend very much on why it was unconstitutional in order for it to apply to the states. The last big constitutional challenge to the Controlled Substances Act, for example, Gonzales v Raich, was arguing that the powers of Congress enumerated in the constitution do not include the ability to police individual drug possession or the transfer of drugs between individuals. That failed, largely because Wickard established a long time ago that the commerce clause might as well be a blank cheque, but even if it had succeeded it would just mean Congress couldn't ban cannabis, not the various state legislatures.
You'd need to successfully challenge cannabis prohibition under individual rights recognised as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause for it to have any effect on the states AFAIK. If that did succeed neither the states nor the federal government would have a legal basis for imprisoning people exclusively convicted of the offences found unconstitutional and I imagine there'd be a flurry of habeas motions (or whatever the specific jurisdiction calls it) and the people wouldn't have criminal records, at least for those specific offences. It'd still be a long mess to sort out, though, given how often dealers in particular are charged with other crimes in addition to possession and distribution.
You also have to consider that even if a federal appeals court found the law unconstitutionally overbroad, they would quite plausibly give the government a reprieve to fix it without releasing anyone. Something similar happened in Ontario based on the Canadian Criminal Code's prohibition being too broad and inhibiting medical access, but it didn't mean everyone was immediately let out.