Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
bbc.com
bbc.com
(I'm not American, so not too familiar with this.)
More seriously - I don't think organized crime went away. It was a big problem before prohibition, and it continued to be a big problem after. However, it may have been weakened by the loss of an extremely profitable revenue source. Alcoholism dropped precipitously during prohibition, and started coming back again after it ended. Given that the US has a huge problem with drunk driving, one could probably make a cogent argument that, with the repeal of prohibition, we replaced a relatively small but sensational amount of organized crime with a large, but relatively socially acceptable, amount of disorganized crime. One might presume that other crimes that tend to go hand-in-hand with alcohol, such as domestic and sexual assault, also got a boost from the repeal.
I'm not sure how well any of this applies to marijuana. With marijuana, the worst (non-government-imposed) externalities seem to be related to how gangs behave when they're financed by the illegal marijuana trade. With alcohol, the organized crime was a problem, but the worst problems seemed (and seem) to be a direct result of how people behave when they've been drinking.
One common thread, though, is that opposition to both bans seems to be a reaction to government overreach as much as anything else. The penalties being handed down for alcohol possession were every bit as outrageous as the ones we see for marijuana possession nowadays, and that played a big part in public perception of the law.
I think that, if you're going to be a very small brewery that has that many different beers, they basically have to all be IPAs. The high alcohol content will help make the beer more resistant to going stale, and the hoppiness will cover all the flaws and consistency issues that you're very likely to have if your brewmaster is spreading themself that thin. By contrast, if you're making something like a helles lager, any problems you have with finicky things like the mash or the primary fermentation will to have nowhere to hide.
Ta da!
Feels pretty arbitrary.
In many countries there are constitutional principles to prevent arbitrary pardon. If a law was unjust all prisoners are freed.
Another question is why didn't they quash convictions between 1996 and present, or between 1996 and 2012 when it became legal? Such obvious questions that aren't addressed by the article -- and this is the BBC no less.
That's not the number I was expecting when I saw the headline. That's 36 people a year, in a city the size of Seattle. I was expecting it to be thousands if not more.
Maybe shows that not very many people are ever convicted for simple possession alone. It's usually an additional charge along with dealing, violence, or both.
Some related stats here: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17243080/m...
And I suppose most of the records are not just the result of simple consumption. It probably involved trafficking or maybe DUI, which will continue being illegal.
And the writing has been on the wall from about April: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattle-a...
I had a quick look but couldn't find one.
Looks like for federal prisons it's as high as 48.6%, but that looks like it's for all drugs not just cannabis.
It's also probably too big a leap to speculate how many people are incarcerated for drug related incidents (theft to get money to feed a habit for example). Crimes which would probably be greatly reduced in a treatment over prohibition system.
48% include drugs as a crime, but 2/3 of them have a more serious crime as well.
So I'd say the parent is right that 16% are in for drugs and would be set free if drugs were legal. The others in that 48% wouldn't be.
>So I'd say the parent is right that 16% are in for drugs and would be set free if drugs were legal. The others in that 48% wouldn't be.
Both would be set free. 16% from state prisons, 48% from federal prisons. These are two separate prison populations.
The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. It's a society that doesn't believe in rehabilitation, just "good people" and "bad people".
I know US immigration specifically asks to mention even if pardoned or expunged.
- Basic disclosure
- Standard disclosure
- Enhanced disclosure
- Protecting Vulnerable Groups (PVG) Scheme
Depending on the level of disclosure, "spent" convictions may need to be disclosed. You can however apply for spent convictions to be removed from the disclosure process.
As an employee for a private consultancy which was carrying out software development work for the Scottish Government I had to get a Basic Disclosure to be able to perform my duties on that contract.
It's not that unusual for certain types of work.
[0]: https://www.mygov.scot/organisations/disclosure-scotland/
It asks but doesn't mean you're automatically denied. BUT a just pardoned person in Seattle would have to answer yes if Canada asked the same question (they probably do)
Arrest doesn't imply conviction or even the low bar for indictment. For instance SWAT protocol is to cuff literally everybody else possible on the scene for one and then assess and release after the scene is secured. One would have to be completely stupid and paranoid to think you shouldn't hire someone because they were in a bank robbery turned hostage situation as a victim.
There is, however, a "ban the box" movement in a plurality of states, banning employers from asking potential employees about a criminal record.
With the internet documenting all public information, however, it's normally trivial for an employer to do a little research and find the employee's record.
Typically, an employer can run a criminal background check in a "ban the box" jurisdiction, but only later in the process (for example: after completing interviews and provisionally deciding this is someone you'd like to hire). There may also be other rules in place about how you can use information from the background check, and what you have to do if you decide to revoke the offer of employment based on the result of the check.
You just can't ask on the application form. You can ask later on in the process though. The idea is to give people with criminal records at least a fighting chance of getting interviews.
First, you have to admit to it with many jobs/other things anyway (e.g., fbi, military, bar exam etc). And it's usually worse to lie about the charge.
Second, everything is documented on the internet. Thus, even if you're eventually proven innocent and never had anything to do with the criminal charge, it will still be associated with you throughout life.
This is why I feel we should be pushing towards a culture that accepts that people can make mistakes.
Who you were last year is not who you are now.
We still talk about people in absolutes, as if the labels we assign someone today are still relevant tomorrow.
Perhaps previous you should have been judged for your poor decisions. I don’t know.
Later you does not deserve to be beholden to those judgements though. People change.
Labeling someone something for life is a poor heuristic, probably more relevant when we died around 20, not now we live 4 of those short lives in one of our long lives.
You can divorce, sell your house, file for bankruptcy, or move back to your parents' basement, but you can't unhave children after having them. You can't go on a break from your children, even to take care of your own physical, mental, or economic health.
Most people at 25 don't have any of that shit figured out yet, and in the modern day and age, they don't have the support network of grandparents, that prior generations had.
You're acting like any of these are inherently good decisions. They're not good or bad. They're just big and potentially very regrettable.
The plan should be how can we get people who have been convicted to find ways to signal that they are rehabilitated. Otherwise, companies will avoid the risk of hiring a criminal and the liability of the lawsuit that might occur if said criminal commits another crime and the company is sued for hiring someone who had committed that crime before.
That assumes that "society" is correctly and fully informed on the issue. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rate compared to other crimes. Plus it is a diverse category with many different types of situations all lumped into the same connotation in people's minds.
Probably for the same reason. We never give them a fair chance afterward.
Surely the decision should be based on the likelihood of future criminal action. If a criminal past is accepted as an indicator of future criminal activity then we have rejected the concept of rehabilitation. If this is the only deciding factor we may also blind ourselves to other risks.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-wh...
then you run into not society but government issues as well. just some examples my cousins run into all the time, they have to use temporary agencies to filter people and stock crews each week. Why? Drug convictions can ban them from some sites their company does work at. It can also jack their company's vehicle insurance and health insurance cost. Plus, go figure, those with more than one don't turn out to be good employees. They used to do direct hires, they even tried VA recommended people. some just hang on long enough to start collecting benefits again or meet eligibility requirements. they have good jobs to offer as do thousands of small employers do but they cannot afford the cost of that risk.
but ignoring their hiring issues, occupational licensing which prevents competition in many fields can include clauses that block those convicted of a crime from entering a field and drug convictions doubly so.
What do you do with "bad people?" Are they to be forever a drain on society? I agree that it's a government issue, but we should be rehabilitating our criminals instead of (just) labeling and punishing them: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/wh...
I think he's usually using it synonymous with "deadbeats you don't want to hire anyway"
The fact that we incarcerate for drug possession seems pretty strange. Petty crimes have way too high of cost in and out of prison.
I associated with a boy in highschool who shortly after graduation murdered two unarmed people in their home with a sawed off shotgun. I would consider him a very bad person.
Both the petty and the extreme carry the same label. Each join the untouchable class.
I'm not sure how to fix that, but it's an issue worth solving
You've pinpointed a major flaw that is mostly invisible to the public.
So are many people without criminal convictions. That's one of life's Great Aporias.
So are many people without criminal convictions. What's your point? I for one think that, say, the Walton heirs or similar rent-extracting landlord heirs are more of a drain on society than poverty-stricken kids selling drugs or making other bad life choices. Life isn't black and white, and further to the point data shows that rehabilitating criminals delivers better outcomes than shoving them into criminality schools (i.e. prisions), as it should be crushingly obvious by now.
Is it a lazy approach to hiring? Yes. So is hiring anyone with an MIT degree just because of their credential.
If the signal is imperfect and there are efficient ways to reveal whether the signal is valid or not then some market participant would likely figure out how to exploit that right?
As other threads have been discussing, if this is the signal that people are receiving, maybe the punishment based system isn’t working and we may want to investigate systems where rehabilitation based systems are seemingly showing more promise. This may help us shift what signals society is receiving.
Having a record for MJ possession and sale is not the same as having a record for murder or even domestic abuse.
In addition to what others are saying, I'll also point out that many with criminal convictions merely made bad or stupid decisions many years (even decades) ago. To put too much weight on that is to commit the fundamental attribution error[1].
Further, in our justice system there are plenty of innocent people who were convinced to take plea bargains to avoid risking much worse sentences that they don't have a good enough lawyer to do them justice. This is especially true for poor people relying on overworked public defenders. Better to just take the six months than risk 10 years and not get to experience your children growing up.
If any of what I've said above is untrue, I would love someone with more direct experience in the justice system to chime in.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
>Capitalism doesn’t just determine our source of income but how we relate to each other, our surroundings, and ourselves. To be rendered superfluous by the system is damning to social wellbeing as well as economic livelihood.
https://qz.com/1269525/capitalism-is-unfolding-exactly-as-ka...
Your best bet is to move to a state with "ban the box" type legislation that prevents them from asking about criminal history until they've sent an offer. Those laws usually set up a regime around criminal history checks as well, that require companies to spend a decent chunk of change on compliance if they request criminal history. As most of these companies we're just being lazy and didn't actually care about criminal history they all tend to use cheap background check companies which give them the legal protection of having done a "check", but which usually find nothing that doesn't come up in 30 seconds of googling. The only companies that tend to do official background checks anymore are healthcare, banks, and government contractors.
I have one friend who had a checkered past and hasn't had anything come up in their background check in the past 5 background checks he's done, so there is a way forward.
I absolutely believe in second chances, but I understand humans have biases also.
On a side note, if you ever want to read a great book that will probably give you empathy for all drug addicts (if you dont have that already) I recommend "Chasing the Scream" https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OZM4ANM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
I kind of find this example hilarious. It‘s not like people rob banks out of passion. They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution.
Now this person uses her time in jail to get the education necessary to work in a bank and you wouldn‘t hire her (providing them a steady income and thus financial security) out of fear they would come and rob their colleagues?
EDIT: I agree with you of course, it DOES depend on the crime. Think: pedophile working in ...church
So what happens if they get in dire straits while working at the bank with far greater levels of access to all sorts of financial information?
It sounded more like you were advocating for them not being hired. "Humans have biases" could be read as referring to the applicant or the employer. I think many are reading it as referring to the former, when you intended the latter.
> That is just the reality we live in.
That is the culture we live in. There is a lot of behavior we take for granted as inherent when it's really learned. Look at Germany and Japan for example to see perspectives on working and employment that don't align with ours. If different countries can have different cultures, can't we strive to improve our culture instead of simply giving up because "That is just the reality we live in"?
I don’t know how this can be solved
EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chances of one being brought. I've had this discussion with several business owners (with me advocating for ignoring convictions), and this is always the reason given
Yet US based HR decisions aren't based on informed awareness, but instead fear. Consider what people "know" about the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit, and what kind of training or legal advice most hr depts get (again, in the US. My understanding is that done other countries actually have standards for hr training)
It's more that if they get sued for some other reason (legitimate or not), the fact that they hired a convict may count against them in the jury's eyes.
So, as the business sees it, hiring a convict brings extra potential liability.
Let's not lose faith in rehabilitation before we've actually tried rehabilitation.
So many "criminals" don't need rehabilitation cause they haven't done anything wrong, anything rehabilitable.
The actual dysfunctional people are small percentage.
First, not everyone has close friends and family. Second, dysfunctional families and bad friends are absolutely a thing and can even be the cause of problems.
Friends and family can be an important part of rehabilitation, there's no doubt in that, but I don't see a reason to abandon people just because those have failed them, if they even had them available to rely on at all.
> why would one expect a monolithic system to do any better?
Because such systems have the resources available to hire and manage trained professionals. What in particular do you think makes a monolithic system unsuitable for solving the problem of effective rehabilitation?
- Too many equate "legal" with "moral" and defer to the authority of the state when it labels someone officially as a "criminal," no matter the offense. This is a deep cultural problem, and I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government. Deference to arbitrary authority is drilled into our young minds over many formative years. Since public school is one of the main religions of America, I don't see this changing any time soon.
- The cultural perception that justice means punishing the bad guy. Too many movies end with the villain getting killed, as if that solves the problem. If instead our culture thought of justice as making the victim whole, then entire classes of crimes would not exist, and a criminal who made restitution would be done with it. BIG NOTE HERE: people should still be able to judge whether to hire or not based on a person's history. No matter how much restitution the thief has made to past victims, for instance, a bank will probably not hire him and for good reason.
- The state should have no say in whether someone is "rehabilitated." If you think for a minute how this would play out, you will realize that it opens the door to either huge abuses by the state or completely absurd outcomes. On the one hand, if you give discretion over a person's "fitness" to reenter society to a prison warden or state bureaucrat, then you allow for unlimited jail terms for those with politically incorrect views. If you try to encode into some regulation a rubric for whether someone is rehabilitated, it will utterly fail to encapsulate the nuance that is the human mind and will lead to gaming the system almost immediately.
This is s huge point, and not just in drug convictions. If someone us poor and gets a warrant on the for unpaid parking fines, that is used in any public debate about them to show they are of low moral character. Reverse the issue and executives that settled charges without admitting fault are without sin, because obviously it was all legal.
If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.
The only thing that separates savages from the civil are the laws and rules of a society, if you break those rules you are not just doing the moral harm in breaking the rule, but doing harm against the society as a whole.
Nonsense! You're making exactly the mistake of confusing laws with morals, but many laws are deeply immoral, even when they reflect the "rules and norms" of a society.
Homosexuality used to be criminalized. Interracial sexual relations used to be criminalized. Contraception used to be criminalized. In all these case, that was based on the "rules and norms" of society. Has moving on from those "rules and norms" harmed our society? Have the individuals prosecuted under those laws harmed our society? I dare say no.
Instead of looking at individual circumstances, people falsely assume (backwards logic) that bad things could have only happened to bad people (e.g. convictions) are dead set on revising their view of an event (well, if it happened, they must have deserved it!)
> If the US wants to truly embrace the ideals of free speech, then we must also accept that there will be actions that are immoral but legal.
And illegal, but moral.
yes, people do take that mental shortcut from time to time, but it's because the legal system is supposed to reflect our collective moral code. when it doesn't, we should fix the legal code to match.
but listening to the kavanaugh hearing yesterday, it looks like things will get worse before they get better. kavanaugh was unfortunately partisan in his rebuttal, but the appalling part is that no one--especially not politicians--is discussing partisanship as a legitimate reason for disqualification. no matter your politics, you do not want partisanship in the courts.
> "I blame compulsory state schooling for exacerbating the issue of blindly trusting the government"
this is too simplistically ideological. are you really completely against patriotism? while schools do contribute to teaching deference, it's because communities believe in living together harmoniously and benefit from such social norms.
what we really need is to apply better incentives to the legal system, which has long been insulated from popular influence due to the danger of partisanship mentioned above. as in the current medical system, lawyers make more money from increased amounts of conflict and more complicated laws. we need to flip that around so that the legal system makes a living form simplifying the legal system and reducing conflict.
and more to the point, we need to realize that there is no "law-abiding citizen". we all break the law from time to time and it doesn't mean we're all criminals. if anything, we need to address rampant cheating in schools, because that's disturbingly accepted shortcut to success. let's hold each other to a higher, more honorable standard.
One of the founding principle of the American Republic was that the government is not the country. "We the people" and all that. Many would argue that to be a "true" American patriot one should be highly skeptical of government with skepticism increasing the farther removed it is from your local community.
skepticism is healthy, dogmatism, not so much. yes, let's keep federal power in check (because it's too tempting to abuse and degenerate into authoritarianism), but no, let's not live in fear of it either.
In fairness, in the modern era, partisanship has been a requirement to be on the Court. Every justice on the court is either liberal or conservative. They would not have been nominated otherwise.
Don't misunderstand me, I agree that maybe partisanship shouldn't be a requirement. I'm just saying that from a pragmatic perspective, it is a requirement. You, unfortunately, can't get nominated if you are not partisan. Even if you could, you certainly would come up against stiff headwinds in the confirmation process. It's just easier to be partisan and have half of those votes on your side no matter what.
Look at all the political scumbags constantly talking about morals and god while laying waste to the lives of fellow humans.
Can't it be both? :-)