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

[JamesDillon]

1) Does this mean that it's ok to break any laws passed without universal suffrage? (fun note: more blacks are denied suffrage today then in 1870)

Explain this. How are blacks "denied" suffrage today? Are you talking about felon disenfranchisement?

2) If there was universal suffrage back then but slavery was legal anyway, would you support the arrest and imprisonment of Harriet Tubman?

Slavery is necessarily inconsistent with "basic rights to political representation and participation by all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc," so your hypothetical is nonsensical. A morally legitimate government by definition does not enslave its citizens.


Edit: What alternative do you propose? I've yet to see anyone try to seriously address the problem of maintaining a cooperative social order among a large group of people whose sincerely-held views of the common good range across a broad spectrum of beliefs in any better way than our current system of majoritarian legislative rule constrained by constitutionally-defined spheres of individual liberty more or less free from majoritarian control. That system necessarily commits each citizen to abiding by the legislative decisions of the majority, whether they like them or not, so long as no constitutionally-protected liberty is invaded. How would you suggest that society is to be maintained if each individual is free to ignore duly enacted legislative decisions with which he happens to disagree? What mechanism other than violence would remain for resolving disagreements about public policy?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A morally legitimate government by definition does not enslave its citizens.

/Libertard

Ours does by forcing us to pay illegal income taxes. Or something.

/

 

[Taarkin]

Explain this. How are blacks "denied" suffrage today? Are you talking about felon disenfranchisement?

Yes. But that was just a bonus funfact and not really relevant to the question.

Slavery is necessarily inconsistent with "basic rights to political representation and participation by all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc," so your hypothetical is nonsensical.

The question presupposed universal suffrage.

A morally legitimate government by definition does not enslave its citizens.

Does a morally legitimate government throw its citizens into jail forever because they had a plant?
(nitpick, I don't think slaves were citizens)

 

[Bob001]

I see. So they were criminally trying to evade taxes and you don't think they should be sent to prison?

In this particular case, under these particular circumstances, including testimony by prosecution witnesses that may been false, no I don't. Neither do Alan Dershowitz and Robert Bork. A big fine and community service would have made the point -- if there was one to be made -- just fine.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...UqQlIt&sig=AHIEtbQ4ZvxyuXUVFdy17VEFhSopT9s1_g

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does a morally legitimate government throw its citizens into jail forever because they had a plant?

Yes, if the citizens requested it.

 

[Taarkin]

Yes, if the citizens requested it.

There's at least one thing that JD believes a morally legitimate government cannot do, even if its citizens request it.

 

[JamesDillon]

Yes. But that was just a bonus funfact and not really relevant to the question.


The question presupposed universal suffrage.

I can respond to these two together. I did not say "universal suffrage." I said "basic rights to political representation and participation by all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc"-- by which I mean more or less all of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (though maybe not every single one of them at the absolute minimum). And I'll say, again, that the institution of slavery is necessarily inconsistent with the basic civil rights necessary to establish a morally legitimate government. So there's no such thing as a morally legitimate government that practices slavery, and your hypothetical is incoherent.

I also don't think that felon disenfranchisement is remotely comparable to Jim Crow disenfranchisement. I don't particularly like felon disenfranchisement, and I'm not going to argue that the criminal law doesn't have a disproportionately greater impact on African Americans-- I've spent too much time in the New York Criminal Court to believe that-- but there's still quite a large difference between disenfranchisement for serious criminal conduct and disenfranchisement for the offense of being black.

Does a morally legitimate government throw its citizens into jail forever because they had a plant?
(nitpick, I don't think slaves were citizens)

The type of moral legitimacy I'm talking about is determined by structure, not the content of any particular legislative decision. Morally legitimate governments can and do make arguably immoral decisions (once again: Korematsu). It's irrelevant, but I'll add that my personal view is that while I don't really agree with the policy, I don't think that a legislative decision to impose a mandatory life sentence on someone with four felony convictions is entirely beyond the scope of moral reasonableness.

And please do respond to the edit that I made to my previous post, which you may not have seen while typing your reply.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There's at least one thing that JD believes a morally legitimate government cannot do, even if its citizens request it.

What is that?

 

[JamesDillon]

What is that?

I think there are plenty of things that a morally legitimate government can't do, even if a majority of its citizens request it. Those things are basically (perhaps not exclusively) identified in the Bill of Rights.

Though that may be too facile an answer. I also don't think that a government automatically becomes illegitimate the moment it violates a constitutional right-- constitutional rights inevitably have fuzzy edges, and even clear violations happen with some frequency. Still, so long as the core rights remain intact to the extent that violation is the exception rather than the rule, I would say that the government remains legitimate.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think there are plenty of things that a morally legitimate government can't do, even if a majority of its citizens request it. Those things are basically (perhaps not exclusively) identified in the Bill of Rights.

Though that may be too facile an answer. I also don't think that a government automatically becomes illegitimate the moment it violates a constitutional right-- constitutional rights inevitably have fuzzy edges, and even clear violations happen with some frequency. Still, so long as the core rights remain intact to the extent that violation is the exception rather than the rule, I would say that the government remains legitimate.

What I meant was that throwing someone in jail for life because they "owned a plant" is legitimate, because it's the sentence the citizens requested - the law was created by legislators who represent the citizens.

 

[shuize]

Puppycow, I know you're also posting from Japan.

Just out of curiosity, how much time do you think a defendant would serve on his fourth consecutive conviction for drug trafficking here?

 

[NewtonTrino]

Slavery is necessarily inconsistent with "basic rights to political representation and participation by all citizens regardless of race, gender, etc," so your hypothetical is nonsensical. A morally legitimate government by definition does not enslave its citizens.

In other words IN YOUR OPINION their government wasn't legit. Well then, now you see how I feel about our current government. Turns out you agreed with me all along. Your set of criteria happens to just be slightly less strict than mine.

 

[NewtonTrino]

Edit: What alternative do you propose? I've yet to see anyone try to seriously address the problem of maintaining a cooperative social order among a large group of people whose sincerely-held views of the common good range across a broad spectrum of beliefs in any better way than our current system of majoritarian legislative rule constrained by constitutionally-defined spheres of individual liberty more or less free from majoritarian control. That system necessarily commits each citizen to abiding by the legislative decisions of the majority, whether they like them or not, so long as no constitutionally-protected liberty is invaded. How would you suggest that society is to be maintained if each individual is free to ignore duly enacted legislative decisions with which he happens to disagree? What mechanism other than violence would remain for resolving disagreements about public policy?

BTW My proposal would be that we simply clarify and strengthen constitutional protections of the average citizen. We have a system that's close by our liberties are constantly under attack so we just make sure the line is very clear. For example I would like to see it in the constitution that you own and control your own body and can decide what substances to ingest.

Theres a bunch of other stuff I would strengthen as well. Freedom of speech is continually being eroded for example. Search and seizure is constantly being pushed as well.

Basically we need a new constitution with stronger protections that also take into account modern technology. No federal DNA database for example. Specify no patenting of human genes. Heck there is a bunch of stuff I would change...

Oh and I would also get rid of the universal suffrage. If you take out of the government more in services than you put in... no vote for you one year (but you can have soup).

 

[NewtonTrino]

Yes, if the citizens requested it.

See, this is where we disagree. The constitution specifically exists to prevent this kind of mob rule. Under this kind of scenario what's to prevent people from voting for all kinds of silliness that hurts minorities. What you're describing is MOB RULE.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

See, this is where we disagree. The constitution specifically exists to prevent this kind of mob rule. Under this kind of scenario what's to prevent people from voting for all kinds of silliness that hurts minorities. What you're describing is MOB RULE.

You are incorrect.

Was Obama elected by mob rule?

 

[NewtonTrino]

You are incorrect.

I'm incorrect that the constitution is supposed to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority? I don't think so. It's also supposed to limit government power so that we can be secure in our rights. Does anyone seriously disagree with this?

 

[Niggle]

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?

You got that backwards. Rape and manslaughter should get A LOT more than a few years.

IMHO, pot, like anything else, can be harmless or harmful depending on what the person with it does. Smoke pot in your own home? Okay. Smoke pot at home instead of taking care of your baby? Bad idea.

Do YOU want to deal with a pot-smoking ambulance driver? I don't. I've also followed drivers who were high on pot (if the smell of the smoke coming out of the car is any indication), and it's no fun. Okay, so they aren't likely to speed, but they are likely to block the road while they stare at the pretty (traffic) lights, and they are prone to wandering through intersections regardless of the color of said pretty lights.

In short, I don't care what you want to do with your own body and brain where you won't harm anyone else. I DO care when what you want to do endangers my life, your child's life, or anyone else's safety.

YMMV

 

[Comrade Raptor]

What I meant was that throwing someone in jail for life because they "owned a plant" is legitimate, because it's the sentence the citizens requested - the law was created by legislators who represent the citizens.

Yeah, but hang on a second there. Not all laws are equal or just, regardless of what the citizens request. This is not enough validation.

A just law must be balanced, fair, sensible, and necessary. Greece wanted to outlaw problem computer gambling, and wound up making a law that made video games illegal. It was subsequently corrected, but if it had not would you argue that a sentence for possession of Mario Party was just?

Or how about the busybodies who get their knickers knotted over violence in media? A well-run campaign might make that eminently sensible in appearance, one that nearly everybody could get on board with at first blush. But if a bad law results, things get crazy. Next thing you know, you could go to jail because Captain America punched the Red Skull in the face.

It might not make any sense, but it could very well be an applicable case under a weird law.


Or consider another hot-button issue: child porn. Very few people have a problem with making laws here, myself included. But that doesn't mean all the laws are good. One currently active is that a depiction in written form of child abuse is considered child porn.

Well, hey, that makes sense. Breaks a loophole for perverts, right?

Sure. Except that if you've got a copy of Gerald's Game in your house - congratulations! You have now broken a law, and are in possession of child porn. Enjoy your sentence, and may FSM have mercy on your soul if you've got a copy of Lolita on your shelf as well.

And three strikes for literature and your kind goes away for life. That's what you get for reading, punk.

Marijuana criminal laws as currently written are not practical. They are not balanced. They are not sensible. They are not necessary. They are not just.

I think they ought to be disobeyed on principle, and I don't even use the stuff.

 

[Beat]

I think sending anyone to prison over drugs is outrageous but I have a hard time feeling sorry for this dumbass.

While I do slightly agree with this sentiment, it is hard for someone to find a real job after being caught their first time distributing. It pretty much renders the person a Burger King worker for life once they are caught once.

 

[ehcks]

Marijuana criminal laws as currently written are not practical. They are not balanced. They are not sensible. They are not necessary. They are not just.

I think they ought to be disobeyed on principle, and I don't even use the stuff.

Unless you get a significantly large supermajority of the country to simultaneously disobey the law for years on end, that won't get you anywhere. A small, disorganized number of people getting arrested barely gets you into the news.

If you want marijuana legalization, you'll have to try something else.