Life sentence for pot conviction. When will the madness end?

[JamesDillon]

The only thing I'm "trying" to argue is that sticking someone in prison for life for dealing weed is unjust, unreasonable, and plain old *********** ridiculous.

None of which demonstrates that this sentence is not a proper enforcement of a democratically-enacted law. At the policy level, I agree with you; if I were a Louisiana legislator I would not vote in support of this law. But I also respect the democratic process enough to think that duly enacted legislation should be enforced regardless of whether I personally like the outcome.* My question to NewtonTrino is whether that qualifies me as "evil."

*Putting aside the fact that I'm not a citizen of Louisiana, so my opinion is irrelevant in any case.

 

[qayak]

But the punishment wasn't for his latest crime. It was for, if you will excuse the expression, his "body of work".

Body of work? Four crimes with no harm done . . . last time I took math 4x0=0.

 

[Mycroft]

How long should their sentence be? Yes, I realize drugs should be legalized, but they're not. So what is the proper sentence in this situation?

If you're going to change the law, then you might as well legalize it. However, if that's off the table, then for the sake of compromise and to save huge amounts of money on incarceration and court costs, then it should be comparable to a traffic ticket.

 

[Aepervius]

3 strike laws are like this : the first time your son rbeak a vase, you punish him by supressing pocket money. The second time you supress pocket money and maybe dessert for a week. The 3rd time ditto. Then the 4th time you put him for the rest of his life in a basement (*) without possibility of going out.

(*) insert any legal maximum punishment, everyday instead.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Body of work? Four crimes with no harm done . . . last time I took math 4x0=0.

We punish crime, not harm. The offense isn't the harm one does, the offense is violating the rules of the state. The state requires its rules to be followed, or else it isn't a very effective state.

 

[excaza]

How long should their sentence be? Yes, I realize drugs should be legalized, but they're not. So what is the proper sentence in this situation?

Nothing. Or maybe a stern lecture? At most, a few hours of community service.

 

[qayak]

But I also respect the democratic process enough to think that duly enacted legislation should be enforced regardless of whether I personally like the outcome.

It isn't a democracy, it is a Republic. Republics have charters that prevent despots, and the majority, from enacting laws that trample the rights, and lives, of the minority, and individuals. This law is in violation of the Constitution. Respecting the process means fighting to have this law thrown out.

 

[JamesDillon]

It isn't a democracy, it is a Republic. Republics have charters that prevent despots, and the majority, from enacting laws that trample the rights, and lives, of the minority, and individuals. This law is in violation of the Constitution. Respecting the process means fighting to have this law thrown out.

If you have an argument that this sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, I would love to hear it.

 

[qayak]

We punish crime, not harm. The offense isn't the harm one does, the offense is violating the rules of the state. The state requires its rules to be followed, or else it isn't a very effective state.

The state is not allowed to make rules for the sake of rules. there must be a reason behind the rules. Otherwise the state is creating the criminals it then punishes.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The state is not allowed to make rules for the sake of rules. there must be a reason behind the rules. Otherwise the state is creating the criminals it then punishes.

What do you think a state is? It's a set of rules devised by a group of people. Everyone in the state has to abide by them, or suffer consequences. If you're lucky enough to live in certain kinds of states, you have a potential chance to change some of the rules, but the state simply can't have a rule but not enforce it. Because then everybody can pick which rules "count" and which don't, and the state is not really a state any longer.

And of course the state creates criminals--you can only have crime if you have law, and the state makes the laws. Some people believe laws are magically present in the nature of things, or inspired by God, or exist as molecules or energy or something, but they don't. They're just ideas that people agree to use as rules.

 

[LTC8K6]

But it's okay to invite your friends over and provide the alcohol for them all to get ********* in your back yard.

It's even better fi they bring their wives and children over because then it is just good ol' American family fun.

Sure, and here you have to buy your liquor from the state.

So, the state will sell it to you, then arrest you for having too much of it.

Neat, huh?

Maybe the state can sell you the MJ too, and then arrest you for being high in public?

It's a pretty cool deal if you can swing it. Tax revenue on both ends.

 

[LTC8K6]

3 strike laws are like this : the first time your son rbeak a vase, you punish him by supressing pocket money. The second time you supress pocket money and maybe dessert for a week. The 3rd time ditto. Then the 4th time you put him for the rest of his life in a basement (*) without possibility of going out.

(*) insert any legal maximum punishment, everyday instead.

The 4th time you defer to Islam/Sharia law...

That ought to put an end to such behavior...

 

[qayak]

If you have an argument that this sentence violates the Eighth Amendment, I would love to hear it.

I'll make it on the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Those "other" rights are the inalienable rights as agreed to by most nations and stated in the Declaration of Independance. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Laws against things that harm no one are in direct violation of these three inalienable rights. They prevent people from pursuing happiness and their prosecution often leads to a loss of liberty, as we see in this case under discussion.

 

[JamesDillon]

Laws against things that harm no one are in direct violation of these three inalienable rights. They prevent people from pursuing happiness and their prosecution often leads to a loss of liberty, as we see in this case under discussion.

The Constitution doesn't mean that simply because you want it to. No decision of the Supreme Court, no statement in the constitutional convention or any ratifying debate, no interpretive authority at all of which I'm aware has ever entertained the notion that the Constitution adopts some quasi-Millian harm principle as a restraint on state action. If you have some actual authority beyond your own opinion that any provision of the Constitution bars the states from criminalizing "victimless" activity, feel free to share it, and explain how your interpretation is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Ewing v. California, which upheld a sentence of 25 years to life for the non-violent shoplifting of three golf clubs under California's three-strikes law, and Rummel v. Estelle, in which the Court upheld a sentence of life imprisonment under Texas's anti-recidivism statute where the offender non-violently stole about $230 over 15 years.

 

[Taarkin]

Repeatedly selling pot from your house where your young son lives isn't too bright.

Throwing a dude into a concrete rape camp for the rest of his life because he had a plant isn't too bright.

 

[qayak]

What do you think a state is? It's a set of rules devised by a group of people.

So far, so good.

Everyone in the state has to abide by them, or suffer consequences.

Still good.

If you're lucky enough to live in certain kinds of states, you have a potential chance to change some of the rules . . .

Still good.

. . . but the state simply can't have a rule but not enforce it. Because then everybody can pick which rules "count" and which don't, and the state is not really a state any longer.

No problem . . . well, except that you left out what the purpose of a law is which is what this all hinges on.

And of course the state creates criminals--you can only have crime if you have law, and the state makes the laws. Some people believe laws are magically present in the nature of things, or inspired by God, or exist as molecules or energy or something, but they don't. They're just ideas that people agree to use as rules.

When I say "creating criminals" it is meant in the sense that the law is unjust and does nothing but creat more criminals. For instance, taxing people 100% of their income and then throwing them in jail when they steal food. At that point, the theft laws are creating criminals. Most people recognize that it is immoral, and not the purpose of the law, to jail people who steal food because they are starving.

To me, marijuana laws are as ridiculous as making humming, which also hurts no one, illegal and then throwing people in jail for it. And on the 4th conviction giving them a life term.

For HUMMING!

 

[excaza]

He was likely going to be found shot to death in his home, along with whatever family was with him, by some thief who knows pot dealers keep cash around, or by a competitor. Just like many other pot distributors.

Yes, because pot dealers are notoriously violent.

 

[GeeMack]

When I say "creating criminals" it is meant in the sense that the law is unjust and does nothing but creat more criminals. For instance, taxing people 100% of their income and then throwing them in jail when they steal food. At that point, the theft laws are creating criminals. Most people recognize that it is immoral, and not the purpose of the law, to jail people who steal food because they are starving.

To me, marijuana laws are as ridiculous as making humming, which also hurts no one, illegal and then throwing people in jail for it. And on the 4th conviction giving them a life term.

For HUMMING!

There will always be some self righteous folks who think it's okay to toss people in prison for doing pretty much anything, as long as it's not something the self righteous folks want to do.

If we applied our laws and restrictions objectively, the greater the risk of danger to other people's lives or property the greater restrictions and penalties follow, owning a bale of marijuana wouldn't even be on the list.

ETA: Well, maybe you wouldn't be allowed to keep it on the roof in case it fell off and landed on someone.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No problem . . . well, except that you left out what the purpose of a law is which is what this all hinges on.

The purpose of a law is to maintain order. People disagree about what is necessary to maintain order, and it is debatable whether any given law does or doesn't maintain order, but that's the purpose for the things.

When I say "creating criminals" it is meant in the sense that the law is unjust and does nothing but creat more criminals.

If the law is unjust it needs to be changed, not ignored. It's essential to preserve order that laws not be ignored.

For instance, taxing people 100% of their income and then throwing them in jail when they steal food. At that point, the theft laws are creating criminals. Most people recognize that it is immoral, and not the purpose of the law, to jail people who steal food because they are starving.

And obviously more people agree with you about taxes than about pot, because there are no 100% tax laws in existence but there are many, many laws about pot.

To me, marijuana laws are as ridiculous as making humming, which also hurts no one, illegal and then throwing people in jail for it. And on the 4th conviction giving them a life term.

For HUMMING!

Are you kidding? I'd gladly execute people for humming in public. As for whistling...execution by slow torture, to draw it out to a maximum of agony. But I realize that I am in the minority in these sensible views, and therefore am unlikely to see laws passed about them.

 

[NewtonTrino]

And what about people who want the duly enacted laws of the state to be properly enforced, regardless of whether they personally agree with every decision made by the legislative majority?

Those people are typically hypocrites who break laws they don't even know exist.

There is IMHO no moral obligation to follow or enforce all the laws on the books. In fact the exact opposite is true, it's our obligation to point out laws that are stupid and to disobey them. Especially laws that are blatantly unconstitutional like drug laws. Anyone naive enough to call for enforcement of all laws is just sticking their head in the sand.