Red Mosquito

The recent flood of pot legalization (a good thing) has been accompanied in some states with vacating or reducing convictions for various pot related offenses, but I struggle with this. Os vacating convictions something we should consider as laws and social opinions change? Simple possession of marijuana is maybe the least problematic case for doing this, and I fully recognize the unfairness of convictions of this nature when people are caught up in three strike laws, but it was a crime. A crime for which a person was convicted through commonly agreed to legal proceedings. This seems like a very dangerous precedent

Yeah this doesn't need a thread at all. Pot convictions--using and selling--should be unilaterally vacated. I'd be okay with setting a bar on selling, so as not to include cartel guys, but low level weed dealers should absolutely not be in jail for doing a crime that's now Colorado's primary tourism driver.

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 wrote:Your thinking on this is completely backwards:

1. Absent of some sort of breathalyzer analog, legalization is completely idiotic, and something the libs will have to own once traffic fatalities start going up. Decriminalization + state medical programs are a fine medium until impairment technology exists.

2. Of course all those convictions should be vacated. It’s only pot! A non-violent drug that doesn’t plague communities the way harder drugs do, and those convicted are disproportionately black.

Try to think about it outside of pot, I was just using that example to prove this a real thing happening today. For example, if we raise the speed limit on a road from 55 to 65, should we refund or remove speeding fines for people who were doing 56-65 before the change? Or does it matter that they broke what was the law at the time they were convicted?

I don't think that's an appropriate parallel--changing a speed limit is not the same thing as making a felony drug charge into a legal recreational activity taxed and regulated by the state.

If, say, it was determined that drunk driving is now legal, I would be fine vacating drunk driving convictions.

But of course that would be absurd. While it makes me uncomfortable to say this, I agree with Burt--I don't think there's a lot of applicable cases where vacating pot convictions would set a precedent.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:But of course that would be absurd. While it makes me uncomfortable to say this, I agree with Burt--I don't think there's a lot of applicable cases where vacating pot convictions would set a precedent.

Prostitution perhaps?

Sure. Abortion convictions pre-legalization is another one that comes to mind. Basically I just don't think the rarified category of "illegal" or "crime" should stand for much.

But I also think if you wanted to single out pot for being a particularly egregious case, given the racialized history of the drug war, given the state's ability to collect money off of post-legalization sales, given the relatively low level of harm incurred by using pot, I would see that logic.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:But of course that would be absurd. While it makes me uncomfortable to say this, I agree with Burt--I don't think there's a lot of applicable cases where vacating pot convictions would set a precedent.

Prostitution perhaps?

Forgot the pot example, clearly that’s a trigger. Maybe prostitution is a better example like trag said.


Should we vacate past convictions for illegal actions that become legal? I think no, but open to hearing the counterpoint

Edit: this obviously assumes the law was constitutional at the time of the conviction

tragabigzanda wrote:Absent of some sort of breathalyzer analog, legalization is completely idiotic, and something the libs will have to own once traffic fatalities start going up.

Any minute now...

tragabigzanda wrote:Bi_3, I’m skeptical there’s a productive conversation to be had around a blanket position. Vacating convictions is something that’s better explored on a type-of-crime basis

I understand this perspective, but that you would consider it means you except the premise right? I’m not sure I do. Maybe selling automatic weapons is a good example. Should someone convicted of illegally selling a full-auto AR15 have the conviction vacated if those weapons are years later legalized for sale?

If you're not sure that you accept the premise of vacating convictions whatsoever, bringing up different examples isn't really going to explore anything. Whether or not I think we should vacate gun sale convictions in a bizarro world where full automatics become legal has no bearing on whether or not I believe in vacating convictions in theory.

Mickey wrote:If you're not sure that you accept the premise of vacating convictions whatsoever, bringing up different examples isn't really going to explore anything. Whether or not I think we should vacate gun sale convictions in a bizarro world where full automatics become legal has no bearing on whether or not I believe in vacating convictions in theory.

Trag wanted examples, they aren’t easy to think of that don’t bring case specific biases in

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:If you're not sure that you accept the premise of vacating convictions whatsoever, bringing up different examples isn't really going to explore anything. Whether or not I think we should vacate gun sale convictions in a bizarro world where full automatics become legal has no bearing on whether or not I believe in vacating convictions in theory.

Trag wanted examples, they aren’t easy to think of that don’t bring case specific biases in

Sure but am I missing something, or are you advancing the claim that the example doesn't matter because you don't think convictions of a crime should ever be vacated en masse?

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:If you're not sure that you accept the premise of vacating convictions whatsoever, bringing up different examples isn't really going to explore anything. Whether or not I think we should vacate gun sale convictions in a bizarro world where full automatics become legal has no bearing on whether or not I believe in vacating convictions in theory.

Trag wanted examples, they aren’t easy to think of that don’t bring case specific biases in

Sure but am I missing something, or are you advancing the claim that the example doesn't matter because you don't think convictions of a crime should ever be vacated en masse?

Yes, for laws and legal proceedings that pass constitutional muster.

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:If you're not sure that you accept the premise of vacating convictions whatsoever, bringing up different examples isn't really going to explore anything. Whether or not I think we should vacate gun sale convictions in a bizarro world where full automatics become legal has no bearing on whether or not I believe in vacating convictions in theory.

Trag wanted examples, they aren’t easy to think of that don’t bring case specific biases in

Sure but am I missing something, or are you advancing the claim that the example doesn't matter because you don't think convictions of a crime should ever be vacated en masse?

Yes, for laws and legal proceedings that pass constitutional muster.

Okay--so what would be the argument for your position? You've given a number of example that supposedly wouldn't work, but not vacating gun crime convictions doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't vacate drug possession convictions.