+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 111
  1. #1
    QuestionJustice is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1

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

    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?
  2. #2
    FlyingRon is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,619
    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.
  3. #3
    xylene is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    St. Richard's
    Posts
    8,750
    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.
  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    864
    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.
  5. #5
    Zigner is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    53,965
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenJ_420Law View Post
    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.
  6. #6
    BOR
    BOR is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,541
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenJ_420Law View Post
    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.
  7. #7
    BOR
    BOR is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,541
    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.



    [url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=457&invol=537[/url]
  8. #8
    justalayman is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    in the ether
    Posts
    34,410
    hey, ex post facto laws are illegal.
  9. #9
    BOR
    BOR is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,541
    Quote Originally Posted by justalayman View Post
    hey, ex post facto laws are illegal.
    Not applicable here bro! EPF does not enter in.
  10. #10
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,446
    Quote Originally Posted by QuestionJustice View Post
    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).
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    864
    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 by StevenJ_420Law; 07-22-2010 at 09:23 AM.
  12. #12
    tranquility is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    18,763
    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.)
  13. #13
    BOR
    BOR is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,541
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    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.

    [url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/arrests-searches-warrants-procedure-26/terry-frisk-situation-its-validity-521044.html[/url]
  14. #14
    tranquility is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    18,763
    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 by tranquility; 07-22-2010 at 11:19 AM.
  15. #15
    BOR
    BOR is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,541
    Quote Originally Posted by tranquility View Post
    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!!

Similar Threads

  1. 302 myself?: stay out of jail
    By kingcuppie in forum Arrests, Searches, Warrants & Procedure
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-14-2011, 03:06 PM
  2. trying to stay out of jail
    By jeramyintrouble in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-21-2005, 03:17 PM
  3. How do I stay out of jail tomorrow ?
    By dlhzm in forum Child Support
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-17-2005, 06:19 PM
  4. Should marijuana be legalized?
    By CatScratchFever in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-13-2002, 07:08 PM
  5. first time marijuana offenders
    By cheez666 in forum Drug Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2000, 10:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.