Vacating convictions

[Bi_3]

Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.

We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is needed for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[BurtReynolds]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Bi_3]

Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.

We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself

But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.

Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Bi_3]

Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.

We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself

But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.

Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.

I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.

To follow through with that thought... under the current system, how would one determine if a conviction was fair?

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Bi_3]

Hard to do on phone, but I’ll try.

We live in a society where we agree a set of boundary conditions is need for human behavior, these are our laws. We established a process for determining whether a violation of those conditions occurred and we, as a society, agree to be bound by the results of that process. When society asserts that someone knowingly violated the law they are adjudicated by that process. The process performs that adjudication based on what the law is at that moment and conviction means society has determined that person guilty of the violating the rules we all agreed to live by. So the fact the we evolve morally to no longer consider a particular boundary condition necessary doesn’t mean that a person previously convicted under it didn’t knowingly break the agreed up laws. So it’s not any particular law that matters, but respect for the existence of law and jurisprudence within society itself

But this falls apart when the adjudications are given out in a systemic discriminatory manner, and when financial interests begin to tip the moral playing field towards the have-nots.

Do you mean disparate impact? If so, then if it rises to the point of making the law unconstitutional, then obviously convictions could be vacated. If you are saying the laws aren’t just because rich people don’t get convicted as often, I would call that immaterial since it doesn’t change the fact a person knowingly violated the law which is the crutch of the point.

I mean it only as an indictment of the lynchpin concept bolded above. The adjudication process is theoretically fair if all other aspects of the adjudication process are equal, which of course they are not.

To follow through with that thought... under the current system, how would one determine if a conviction was fair?

Theoretically? The statutory codes and adjudications process would be written at such a granular level, and the accused would be systemically protected from any sort of bias so as to perfectly validate the "Justice is blind" maxim.

In the real world.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[washing machine]

Who among us jaded, middle-aged, working folk haven't vacated their convictions as the Sisyphean task of living and dying continues on and on?