• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

If Marijuana is legalized, will the drug offenders stay in jail?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

QuestionJustice

Junior Member
California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana, if this happens, what will happen to all the people who are currently in the California prison system, for marijuana related charges, more specifically possession of over an ounce?
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
Unless there is something specifically that grants them amnesty, NOTHING.
Just because something you did was illegal when you did it and isn't anymore, doesn't mean you're not still guilty of a crime.

California is far from legalizing what most people are in jail for.
 

xylene

Senior Member
If marijuana is legalized, the offenders will stay in jail under their sentences.

BUT

California has a prison cash crunch, soooo, in all likelihood if a legal pot bill passes, many marijuana offenders will be given executive clemency / pardons. Easier parole and early release too.
 
It is not in Prop 19 to release them.

There will be countless motions and writs filed and many in fact will be released, as they should be. Furthermore, there will begin to be mountains of continuances of ongoing cases that could be affect pending the outcome of the election, as it draws closer.

Hopefully we would get some decent probation terms installed as well and CA wont be spending so much to hold people in jail or back to prison over violations involving something like a joint.. which costs us 10's of millions.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
It is not in Prop 19 to release them.

There will be countless motions and writs filed and many in fact will be released, as they should be. Furthermore, there will begin to be mountains of continuances of ongoing cases that could be affect pending the outcome of the election, as it draws closer.

Hopefully we would get some decent probation terms installed as well and CA wont be spending so much to hold people in jail or back to prison over violations involving something like a joint.. which costs us 10's of millions.
...in your opinion.
 

BOR

Senior Member
It is not in Prop 19 to release them.

There will be countless motions and writs filed and many in fact will be released, as they should be. Furthermore, there will begin to be mountains of continuances of ongoing cases that could be affect pending the outcome of the election, as it draws closer.
Steven, I know, as an example, if a criminal defendant is awaiting trial/appeal for an offense and a US SC decision is rendered that affects thier case, even though not directly thiers, it is retroactive. The case is Johnson something, if I remember correctly.

I don't know about the retro of state cases or AM's, even my state, but I agree here, you will see Motions/Petitions filed for release/early release on the retroactive basis, even though not specifically spelled out in Prop 19.
 

BOR

Senior Member
Here is the case I was speaking of, it was a 4th AM case.

Held:

A decision of this Court construing the Fourth Amendment is to be applied retroactively to all convictions that were not yet final at the time the decision was rendered, except where a case would be clearly controlled by existing retroactivity precedents. Hence, Payton is to be applied retroactively to respondent's case. Pp. 542-563.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=537[/url
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
California is on the verge of legalizing marijuana, if this happens, what will happen to all the people who are currently in the California prison system, for marijuana related charges, more specifically possession of over an ounce?
Yes, if they went to prison, they will have to serve out whatever legal sentence they received. As a note the number of people in prison in CA for possession of marijuana is very minimal, and dollars to donuts they pled to the possession of more than an ounce to avoid much more serious offenses to include sales. I have yet to ever see in my 19 years on the job anyone sent to CA state prison for possession of more than an ounce ... ever. If they have, I suspect it is because they had a multitude of other felonies and that was the plea deal, or, it was the best chance to get a bad guy with a serious record off the street.

Per the CDCR in 2008 some 2% of admissions to CDCR were for marijuana offenses: 1.4% for possession for sale, 0.5% for sales, and 0.1% for other marijuana offenses (this might be where those more than ounce possession cases might be hidden).
 
VOP's is where the tax payers get it in the pocket book for the simple possession/mj use. Those stats get counted as the original crime, not as a VOP for a testing positive or having a roach... plus those numbers dont get added into the 150 mil earmarked and many arent part of the 75K arrests per year.
 
Last edited:

tranquility

Senior Member
Steven, I know, as an example, if a criminal defendant is awaiting trial/appeal for an offense and a US SC decision is rendered that affects thier case, even though not directly thiers, it is retroactive. The case is Johnson something, if I remember correctly.
This is inapplicable to the discussion. In the case, there is a refinement of what is understood to be a violation of the 4th amendment. In other words, if something is a violation today, it was a violation yesterday, even if that had not been decided by the courts as yet.

However, if the law changes, it does not change what had been before then. (Unless the new law has a provision to be retroactive.)
 

BOR

Senior Member
BOR:

Steven, I know, as an example, if a criminal defendant is awaiting trial/appeal for an offense and a US SC decision is rendered that affects thier case, even though not directly thiers, it is retroactive. The case is Johnson something, if I remember correctly.

This is inapplicable to the discussion.
I will make an exception here to my rule since I came back and address you.

Funny, here you cite an Oregon case when the poster is from Florida, yet last year you told me to STOP posting irrelevant information. The thread is still there.

Now, if I or someone would have told you that in the below to stop posting irrelevant info, you would have had a fit.

Just to vent here, but I won't answer your comments to me anymore, so
criticize away.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/arrests-searches-warrants-procedure-26/terry-frisk-situation-its-validity-521044.html
 

tranquility

Senior Member
OK. I will continue to point out your errors.

Info edit:
I just went back to your link. Um, getting the point of something really isn't your strong suit is it?

As was listed above the case, the point was states can be more restrictive than the federal rule in Mimms. (The case which was being discussed.) What difference would it make which state was used to point that out?
 
Last edited:

BOR

Senior Member
OK. I will continue to point out your errors.
Right, whatever.

When I quoted Santana in a thread you said there were 2 Circuit cases that bypassed it. Justalayman asked you 2 times to cite them, yet you refused. Why, because there were no such cases.

My errors. You need to get a life. You tell posters one thing to stop doing yet you continually do it.

When I would not answer you since I came back then you started in with Steven the same way you did me.

Whatever tranq!!
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top