Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Estheria Quintessimo

Thread: Shoulda person serve the entire sentence if what they did is no longer a crime?

  1. #1 Shoulda person serve the entire sentence if what they did is no longer a crime? 
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    With changes in marijuana laws etc. I was just wonder how most people felt about this. I suspect many will say "they knew it was illegal when the did it" or it would weaken respect for the law. But given the expense of incarceration, is it worth it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    With changes in marijuana laws etc. I was just wonder how most people felt about this. I suspect many will say "they knew it was illegal when the did it" or it would weaken respect for the law. But given the expense of incarceration, is it worth it?
    Maybe they should compensate those who have been fined and incarcerated in the past as well!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Really depends on the state. As for should they...I think they answer is obviously no.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    No, i do not believe they should unless it was a violent crime.

    They should be grandfathered out if it is no longer a crime. Same way with ex post facto, that protects you from being prosecuted for a crime if it was legal when you committed it.

    If say you hunt rabbits last Wednesday then next week they make it illegal to hunt rabbits on Wednesday, you are protected under ex post facto.

    However if its illegal to hunt rabbits on wednesday & you do, then next week they say its legal. You do not have protection, but you should.

    Allthough with marijuana, remember in america its still illegal under federal law. Thus legal or medical does not matter. feds can come in any time & bust people. I dunno how canada works so your mileage may vary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    548
    Yes, though to me it depends on the crime and if they are fit for re-entry into society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    No, i do not believe they should unless it was a violent crime.

    They should be grandfathered out if it is no longer a crime. Same way with ex post facto, that protects you from being prosecuted for a crime if it was legal when you committed it.

    If say you hunt rabbits last Wednesday then next week they make it illegal to hunt rabbits on Wednesday, you are protected under ex post facto.

    However if its illegal to hunt rabbits on wednesday & you do, then next week they say its legal. You do not have protection, but you should.

    Allthough with marijuana, remember in america its still illegal under federal law. Thus legal or medical does not matter. feds can come in any time & bust people. I dunno how canada works so your mileage may vary.
    That would be the opposite of ex post facto, not the same. If it was the same principle as ex post facto, someone is guilty if it's a crime when they commit the act. So, they're still guilty. Now, if the governor wants to issue a pardon or something, I don't care about that. but, legally, they're guilty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    If it is a crime today and you are incarcerated then you must do the time no matter what laws might change. That does not mean that the state couldn't grant you an early release or just put on probation for the rest of your sentence.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    They are in jail for committing a crime. They committed it willingly and knowingly. To me, that means they have to serve their time.

    On the flip side, I would like to see them all released, like Harold said, via a pardon or some other measure. Of course, that only applies if their previous act is no longer criminal. I don't know the statistic on how many people are locked up for marijuana-related crimes or what their actual crime was, but people who were caught selling to minors or operating a vehicle under the influence, etc still need to serve out their sentence.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    They are in jail for committing a crime. They committed it willingly and knowingly..
    Actually the later, as in "knowingly," has nothing do with the conviction--though it might have effected the sentence.

    --

    Somewhat dismayed anyone would suggest they remain in jail regardless if the offense becomes legal. In most cases people are convicted for violating specific actions ...not for broadly disrespect all laws--exceptions are treason, things like "actions unbecoming," and those used to keep political prisoners locked up. If for example, pot becomes legal, what would be the point of keeping a pot head in a federal pen? Behavior modification so he doesn't use pot that now legal anymore? A deterrent for others not to use what's now legal? There is no reason to keep that person--other than greed by prison companies coupled to corrupt politicians.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; March 1st, 2014 at 09:23 AM.
    DianeG likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    stare decisis
    [pronounced sta-ray de-see-sis]
    Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true.

    Even in individual cases, where new, significant evidence or testimony is found after conviction, the appeal courts are unwilling to send a case back to "square one" for a re-trial. Even where DNA shows the defendant didn't commit the crime, the defendants sometimes agree to "time served", which means that the defendants still have the conviction on their record, although these are typically murder or rape cases where the consequences of a guilty finding (despite the new evidence/testimony) are extreme.

    Besides, the defendants knew the activity was illegal and that they were breaking the law, and there's often other charges/convictions along with the possession/distribution of marijuana. Then there's the cases where the person is charged with possession of several drugs. including marijuana, and the two sides agree to the marijuana conviction and drop the others. Then the defendant would go back to being charged/tried on the other charges. It's a can of worms with finding arresting officers and witnesses, people's memories, lost evidence, limitation of action, etc.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    No, i do not believe they should unless it was a violent crime.

    They should be grandfathered out if it is no longer a crime. Same way with ex post facto, that protects you from being prosecuted for a crime if it was legal when you committed it.

    If say you hunt rabbits last Wednesday then next week they make it illegal to hunt rabbits on Wednesday, you are protected under ex post facto.

    However if its illegal to hunt rabbits on wednesday & you do, then next week they say its legal. You do not have protection, but you should.

    Allthough with marijuana, remember in america its still illegal under federal law. Thus legal or medical does not matter. feds can come in any time & bust people. I dunno how canada works so your mileage may vary.
    That would be the opposite of ex post facto, not the same. If it was the same principle as ex post facto, someone is guilty if it's a crime when they commit the act. So, they're still guilty. Now, if the governor wants to issue a pardon or something, I don't care about that. but, legally, they're guilty.
    I understand how it works legally, but one likes to think there are sound reasons behind specific laws, and as Lynx_Fox says, if there's no benefit to the prisoner or to society, what is the point?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    No, i do not believe they should unless it was a violent crime.

    They should be grandfathered out if it is no longer a crime. Same way with ex post facto, that protects you from being prosecuted for a crime if it was legal when you committed it.

    If say you hunt rabbits last Wednesday then next week they make it illegal to hunt rabbits on Wednesday, you are protected under ex post facto.

    However if its illegal to hunt rabbits on wednesday & you do, then next week they say its legal. You do not have protection, but you should.

    Allthough with marijuana, remember in america its still illegal under federal law. Thus legal or medical does not matter. feds can come in any time & bust people. I dunno how canada works so your mileage may vary.
    That would be the opposite of ex post facto, not the same. If it was the same principle as ex post facto, someone is guilty if it's a crime when they commit the act. So, they're still guilty. Now, if the governor wants to issue a pardon or something, I don't care about that. but, legally, they're guilty.
    yes. my apoliges. I understand it is the opposite as ex post facto. I was trying to say it should be treated the same as retroactive laws. not that it was already the same, but that it should in our justice system be treated the same
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore Estheria Quintessimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    153
    Did the crime? Do the time.

    You should not slack on discipline. At the time that crime was commited, it was totally clear to that person, what the potential TIME would be. So yeah that person should serve out the whole sentence.

    So for the general populus, NO MERCY.

    But ofcourse you can always have leniency to the letter,... as the law is never to be taken literral. The law is an interpretation of the best -at that time- thought of possibilities, and has -needs to have- the potential to change. If not,... democracy is a no-go.
    jrmonroe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 27th, 2013, 11:53 PM
  2. When was the first Death Sentence?
    By MOHANTHILAGARAJ in forum History
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 29th, 2012, 04:42 PM
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: June 1st, 2011, 06:53 PM
  4. Possibly the most disturbing video on the entire internet!
    By (In)Sanity in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 31st, 2009, 09:21 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •