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

JamesDillon said:
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.
Click to expand...

You forgot about the case of the guy getting 77 years for stealing a $0.50 pack of donuts that he thought someone had paid for.

If these laws aren't unjust then nothing is, so let's quit pretending our respective systems are any better than anyone else's. Forget China's human rights violations, Iran's Sharia law, they are no worse.

The other point is that the Constitution puts these inalienable rights outside the jurisdiction of the government and the courts.

As well, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights is largely based on the U.S. system. The U.S. had a large hand in helping write it. However, the U.S. no longer participates in much of the process of expanding human rights and is often found to be undermining them. The U.S. has often been found in violation of the human rights laws they agreed to. Their own laws.

Perhaps it isn't that the U.S. courts are right in their interpretation of inalienable rights, and no-harm laws. Perhaps the U.S. system is broken.
 
NewtonTrino said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^^You've hit a home run with this.^^^
 
You know, the crux of the matter, to me, is the having his kid there.

In my younger days, i can say i was friends with a few people in his career path. And 99% of the time it is fine. You know the people coming over, you know what to expect. But that 1% of the time, is what makes it dangerous to have a kid around.

Sans kid? I would say this is silly. Exposing yourself to the level of risk ( albeit small) of his profession, is his choice. But exposing his kid is simply child endangerment.
 
NewtonTrino said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've asked others for some explanation of how recidivism-enhancement laws are unconstitutional, so I'll ask you for some explanation-- hopefully beyond your own heartfelt belief-- as to why drug laws are "blatantly unconstitutional." And bear in mind we're dealing with state drug laws here, which aren't subject to Article I limitations on Congressional power.

How, exactly, do you propose that society is to function if everyone is free to disobey whatever laws they find "stupid"? Or is it only the laws that you find stupid that we should be free to ignore?
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. Anyone who has expensive things in their house should be thrown in jail forever.
NewtonTrino said:
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.
Click to expand...
But I vas just vollowink orders!
 
Last edited:
JamesDillon said:
I've asked others for some explanation of how recidivism-enhancement laws are unconstitutional, so I'll ask you for some explanation-- hopefully beyond your own heartfelt belief-- as to why drug laws are "blatantly unconstitutional." And bear in mind we're dealing with state drug laws here, which aren't subject to Article I limitations on Congressional power.

How, exactly, do you propose that society is to function if everyone is free to disobey whatever laws they find "stupid"? Or is it only the laws that you find stupid that we should be free to ignore?
Click to expand...

In my opinion drug laws are unconstitutional. Obviously the supreme court disagrees with me.

Recidivism laws I have no opinion on either way although they seem excessively harsh to me.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Only the little people pay taxes", since we're exchanging inflammatory quotations.
Click to expand...

Come on, what does that have to do with anything? At least his point made sense in context as the "following orders" mentality is exactly the issue here.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The purpose of a law is to maintain order.
Click to expand...

So what is the difference between smoking pot and drinking beer in regard to maintaining order?

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

Wrong. "Inalienable rights" mean you do not have to obey anything that infringes on them. A no-harm "crime" is an infringement so you don't have to obey that law.

The reality is that an individual cannot change anything. People's lives are destroyed everyday, even though they are right and what they did was moral and what the authorities did was immoral.

There are so many laws you cannot help but break them everyday. Not all laws are enforced, not even all good ones are. The claim that all laws must be enforced is only used when someone is pointing out the unfairness of a law. It's a favourite method of discrediting a valid complaint.
 
JamesDillon said:
How, exactly, do you propose that society is to function if everyone is free to disobey whatever laws they find "stupid"? Or is it only the laws that you find stupid that we should be free to ignore?
Click to expand...

And to more specifically answer this question... is this what already happens? I sure as heck ignore plenty of laws, pot laws being number one. Are you suggesting society actually pays attention to these laws?

In fact the laws themselves create the environment that we have now as people can game the system. In this case the price of pot reaches ridiculous levels which cause people who do break the laws to get crazy rich, which allows them to extend their criminality into other areas. The drug laws are massively massively counter productive to society.

So yes, I think people should ignore stupid laws. And I think it's how society currently works and it's how change occurs over time.
 
qayak said:
The other point is that the Constitution puts these inalienable rights outside the jurisdiction of the government and the courts.
Click to expand...
Marbury v. Madison would seem to disagree with you about this. If courts aren't to be the interpreters of constitutional rights, then how do you suggest we resolve disputes about whether a right has been violated? Is every defendant to be the judge of the government's treatment of him? If that's the case I think our prisons are going to empty out very quickly.

Perhaps it isn't that the U.S. courts are right in their interpretation of inalienable rights, and no-harm laws. Perhaps the U.S. system is broken.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is, and if you think so, then, assuming you're a resident of the United States, you should exercise the quite considerable political rights you enjoy to petition the government to change the law, or run for office yourself. But the U.S. courts aren't interpreting "inalienable rights." Their job is to interpret the United States Constitution, not some abstract notion of justice. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution's demands can never be objectively wrong, but you're not even trying to give any cognizable legal reasons as to why the Constitution does forbid this legislation, as opposed to why you think it should.
 
So, in essence, the whole topic boils down to this:

There's a difference between:
1) You finding a law to be stupid
and
2) You feeling like you can break the law because the law is stupid

The second one, is usually a sign of someone being, at least mildly, stupid.

If I disagree that I can't pay for something on the day after I bought it, that doesn't mean I'm gonna take something out of the grocery without paying it, because in my opinion people should be able to pay the day after. I'm still shoplifting and I should still go to jail.
 
NewtonTrino said:
Come on, what does that have to do with anything? At least his point made sense in context as the "following orders" mentality is exactly the issue here.
Click to expand...

It's precisely the same thing. Helmley felt the tax laws were stupid. She felt she didn't need to follow them, that her avoidance of taxes harmed nobody, and the laws were unjust. So she disobeyed them.

And she got hammered for it, and rightly so.

People ultimately do decide for themselves whether they're going to play by the rules or not, but they can't break the rules then complain about how unfair those rules are when they get caught. That's the annoying kid who plays Tag and yells "I'm not playing!" when they get tagged to be "It".

A good citizen attempts to change a bad rule, not break them.
 
JamesDillon said:
How, exactly, do you propose that society is to function if everyone is free to disobey whatever laws they find "stupid"? Or is it only the laws that you find stupid that we should be free to ignore?
Click to expand...

How about by getting rid of the really stupid laws and making it so the punishment fits the crime? Wasn't that supposed to have been the system to begin with?

People know we need laws and nobody is finding the laws against murder stupid. But why don't you want these laws that regulate harmless activities to be used to put people in jail and ruin their lives?

Why are you so fearful of upsetting the status quo? The status quo is institutionalized absurdity.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's precisely the same thing. Helmley felt the tax laws were stupid. She felt she didn't need to follow them, that her avoidance of taxes harmed nobody, and the laws were unjust. So she disobeyed them.

And she got hammered for it, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Not a harmless crime. Let's get back on topic.
 
According to the story, this guy's previous convictions were not separate offenses and sentences, but multiple offenses charged at the same time ("distribution" and "possession with intent to distribute."). He received a five-year suspended sentence for one and five years of probation for both. On the second occasion the jury convicted him of "possession with intent" (still carrying a potential 15-year term), and the prosecutor persuaded the judge to treat him as a habitual offender.

How can anyone think this isn't a gross injustice? The initial convictions essentially constituted one non-violent act, and the second one was for "possession," not even actual sale. Rape and manslaughter typically get only a few years. What do you wanna bet this prosecutor and judge are running for re-election and want to be seen as tougher on crime than the other guys?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
So, in essence, the whole topic boils down to this:

There's a difference between:
1) You finding a law to be stupid
Click to expand...

I think the disagreement boils down to this:

1) An individual thinks the law is stupid.

2) The law is stupid.

One group thinks it is only an opinion that the law is stupid while the other group thinks some laws actuall are stupid.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone really think this guy was protesting a bad law? I vote for the term 'scofflaw' as correct here.

As far as Louisiana goes, is the law cited a type of mandatory sentence thing? That's where the problem might be, a judge who cannot give a reduced sentence by way of legislative fiat -- and that I think should change nationwide.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
If I disagree that I can't pay for something on the day after I bought it, that doesn't mean I'm gonna take something out of the grocery without paying it, because in my opinion people should be able to pay the day after. I'm still shoplifting and I should still go to jail.
Click to expand...

Sure, but not for the rest of your life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom