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

marplots said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, the DA had to go out of his way after the jury convicted him of a lesser charge.
 
He broke the same law multiple times. It doesn't matter which it is.

If you want to change a law, you actually do work towards changing it. You don't flagrantly ignore that law in plain sight of the people paid to enforce it.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You can't say that a punishment is excessive unless you know what the correct punishment is. Which is why I asked and you didn't answer.
Click to expand...

Sure I can.

I have no idea what the average sentence is for stealing a loaf of bread, but I have no problem saying that chopping off the hands of the offender would be excessive (to say the least).

I don't know what the fine is in Missouri for driving 80 in a 55, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that summary execution would be excessive.

Similarly, throwing someone in prison for life for dealing pot - yes, even after multiple convictions - is excessive.
 
Last edited:
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...

The Freemen think that income taxes are illegal and they should be allowed to own any weapon they choose. What if everyone decided not to pay taxes because the tax code is "blatantly unconstitutional"? Then what would happen?

Remember: The Supreme Court (ultimately) decides what is "blatantly unconstitutional", not you.
 
qayak said:
So what is the difference between smoking pot and drinking beer in regard to maintaining order?
Click to expand...

Ask the people who wrote the law.

qayak said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your naivete is endearing.
 
NewtonTrino said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think laws against theft are stupid. So when I break into your house and steal everything you have, surely you won't call the police, right?
 
qayak said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's irrelevant. Whether the law is in fact stupid or not, you can't use that as an excuse to break the law. The civilized thing to do is to make civilized protests, organize marches, try to appeal to a referendum of some sort so that Congress changes the law. That's the intelligent thing to do. The stupid thing to do is what the person in question did.
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
How about by getting rid of the really stupid laws
Click to expand...
If what I've already said doesn't make it clear to you, not everyone agrees with you about what is a stupid law and what is not. You find recidivism enhancement laws stupid, but I guarantee you that there's another American citizen out there, whose Constitutional rights are exactly the same as yours, who sincerely believes that such laws are an important part of maintaining a civil society. That belief is no more or less valid than your belief to the contrary. How, then, are we to decide between the two of you whose view should govern public policy? Fortunately we've worked out a pretty effective way to do that: by the majority vote of a representative legislature. Unfortunately for you, it happens to be the case that a majority of legislators in Louisiana (and other states) believed that recidivism enhancement laws are worth having the last time the issue was put to a vote.

and making it so the punishment fits the crime? Wasn't that supposed to have been the system to begin with?
Click to expand...
It is in the system. That principle is embodied in the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, and applies to state legislation through the Fourteenth Amendment. Again, unfortunately for you, the government entity to which the legal authority to interpret that document has been committed-- the Supreme Court of the United States-- disagrees with your view that enhancement laws violate that principle.

People know we need laws and nobody is finding the laws against murder stupid.
Click to expand...
Murder is an example of a criminal prohibition that is universally accepted, or nearly so. But as I pointed out above, many laws don't enjoy that degree of acceptance but are nevertheless duly enacted by a majority vote. Why is your view that recidivism laws are "stupid" entitled to more respect than the view of the majority of legislators who disagree with you?

But why don't you want these laws that regulate harmless activities to be used to put people in jail and ruin their lives?
Click to expand...
Do you mean why do I want that? Your question doesn't make sense as written. In any case, as I've said previously, I don't agree with life imprisonment for non-violent drug crimes and would not have voted for this statute were I a Louisiana legislator. What you appear to be unable to grasp is that one can disagree with the policy underlying a statute and still support the enforcement of duly enacted law until that law is changed by democratic means.

Why are you so fearful of upsetting the status quo? The status quo is institutionalized absurdity.
Click to expand...
I believe that we are incredibly fortunate to live in a society in which the People are sovereign, and which zealously protects the right of individuals and groups to seek changes to the status quo through the exercise of a long list of constitutionally-protected rights. The minute we stop respecting the right of a legislative majority to enact laws with which we may strenuously disagree but which are nevertheless binding on us, we've eroded a vital component of our capacity for self-government.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Sure I can.

I have no idea what the average sentence is for stealing a loaf of bread, but I have no problem saying that chopping off the hands of the offender would be excessive (to say the least).

I don't know what the fine is in Missouri for driving 80 in a 55, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that summary execution would be excessive.

Similarly, throwing someone in prison for life for dealing pot - yes, even after multiple convictions - is excessive.
Click to expand...

So you think it's excessive because it is "above average"? How do you thing averages are derived? If nothing was above average, we'd have no average.
 
Cleon said:
Sure, but not for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Surely then, you wouldn't wanna go breaking the law on purpose then, right?

You and I agree it's harsh, so neither you nor I would be stupid enough to either way go and break such law because we disagree with the consequences, when the very act of breaking the law has such consequences.

And I don't know if the guy knew beforehand that this was gonna lead to a life sentence. Myself, I'm as ignorant as the guy in question about that, so that's why, to avoid problems, I don't even do it in the first place. Because what I do know is that in these legal systems such as the one in the US, the only thing worse than committing a felony is continuing to do it over and over again. So even though I had no clue what the punishment was for this felony done 4 times in a row, I had a pretty strong hunch it would be something like that.

I also thought at first that going to jail for passing a red light was a bit harsh but I still don't do it (And also, as time went by, I begun to agree that one should indeed go to jail for that, for the consequences of doing so can be the difference between life and death of innocent people)
 
Last edited:
NewtonTrino said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that? What constitutional provision do drug laws violate? On what basis do you conclude that the Supreme Court's reading of that provision is incorrect?

Or are you just using "blatantly unconstitutional" to mean "I don't like it"? That's not what those words mean.

NewtonTrino said:
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?
Click to expand...
Society certainly "pays attention" to drug laws enough to prosecute violators, doesn't it? Or do you mean that people who want to do drugs will do so whether it's illegal or not? If the latter, I very much doubt that the law has no deterrent effect at all.

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.
Click to expand...
So what do we do about people who think laws against rape, murder, and theft are "stupid"?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom