Ok, so my original reaction was that either a crime was committed or it wasn't. However, if they're going to do this, then why not take driving under the influence out of the criminal arena too? I do wonder how often nonviolent drug offenders appear later in other cases like OWIs and violent drug related charges. It looks to me like we're ending the "War on Drugs" and de-criminalizing those types of offenses. Also, if an indigent person is charged a civil fine, then how do they pay the fine that's proposed?
In response to the last comment, crime is based on time and context not right and wrong. It has been apparent for the last twenty years or so that the War on Drugs is a futile, highly expensive, endeavor. All of the partisanship aside, it makes sense economically to decriminalize these petty crimes. Also, as stated in the last sentence of the article the "right to counsel' given in Gideon v. Wainwright will become more efficient and sufficient for indigent clients. Indigent clients will receive better representation because attorneys will not be bogged down with heavy caseloads.
If our government were truly interested in justice, then we wouldn't have Obama insisting that our states bow to the draconian Federal enforcers who prefer to keep a criminally lucrative Prohibition alive despite our begging and pleading to decriminalize drug possession. If Prohibition did not exist, much of our government would disappear, allowing a significant amount of peace, wealth and freedom to be finally restored to we the people. Our war on drugs is a yet another longstanding Federal power grab of our precious economic resources to keep for themselves and a blow against our personal freedom. Our political elite would not have it any other way.
We know exactly where the problem is: the well-rewarded political cronies, criminally minded government unions, corrupt Hollywood stars and freeloaders voted him in again last November. All of you who voted for Obama should hang your heads in shame for supporting this continued oppression and economic depredation of the people by our tyrannical political elite. The day you vote OUT tyrants who prefer their power at the cost of our peace, wealth and freedom, the day we will have a better place for justice in our country, especially for the poor and indigent.
#3, you take the daily cake, asserting that the impoverished would be better off under someone who wrote off 47% of the pouplation (which by definition includes all the impoverished).
"crime is based on time and context not right and wrong".
Really. That is precisely why we have a crime problem and are even considering 'decriminalizing' lesser offences. Criminality was codified for the good of society as a whole. A criminal act is recognized as such because the civil society has agreed that such behavior is disruptive or damaging in some way.
Murder, rape, theft, battery and stupification/addiction via poisonous chemical substances have no temporal component. And context? What is the acceptable context for a drive-by shooting or corporal inhury to a child?
That some members of society wish to give-up on accountability because it's becoming too expensive, does not change the reason for nor the appropriatness of law.
I think that you are missing the point. Crime is not universal nor are the punishments. For a time alcohol was illegal and prohibited. After public outcry it was deemed a legal substance once again. It's the exact same thing with drugs. Crime rarely has to do with what is right and wrong but the time period and context in which the illegal act took place. Laws do not stop crime. Legislation never stops crime. Usually, the unintended consequences of legislation are worse than the crime it was supposed to prevent. (ie. The War on Drugs and two generations of disenfranchised, mass incarcerated Americans)
Drug laws notwithstanding, I submit many laws are universal, i.e. "common law". Nearly all societies prohibit antisocial behaviors such as murder, theft, and the like.
While I think we can agree that the war on drugs has not been an overwhelming success, and I don't believe that an adult conversation regarding marijuana is out of the question, I would never support "legalizing" most or even many drugs. Substances like methamphetamine, phencycladine, MDMA (exstacy), LSD, cocaine and a myriad of others are destructive of the individual and society as a whole.
Anyone who has seen downward spiral of a meth-addict and the violence that inevitably precedes his incarceration, or death, recognizes that this substance is beyond a scurge on mankind. There is no such thing as a "recreational user" of methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine. Even weekly use of any of these will result in addiction in 99 percent of all users. Once heavilly addicted these people are non-productive and resort to feeding their habit by whatever means possible. I am not willing to pay for their habit...by economic subsidy or by criminal victimization.
Society must have rules. I abhor big government and the nanny state, but some rules are necessary. Instead of regulating what kind of lightbulb I can buy, where I can have a smoke, how much water my toilet uses or how many ounces my soft drink cup holds (not to mention how many rounds my AR15 magazine holds), lets get serious about dangerous drugs. Sales of drugs should net a 10 year sentence at hard labor. A second conviction, life. Make prison an unpleasant place to be again. It's a penal institution, not a rehab facility.
Ask anyone who has done time in a military prison at hard labor. Ask them what could make them go back there again. To a man, they will tell you "Nothing" is worth that.
My Question is, if we are going to legalize drug use, why wouldn't we first "legalize" equivalent alcohol use. It's insane that an 18 to 20-year-old can smoke pot with impunity, but the same person will often lose there driver's license for mere possession of alcohol. Is it a surprise that kids use the easy-to-conceal illegal drugs rather than the "legal" ones when there is more legal and social stigma associated with smoking cigarettes and drinking beer than with smoking pot and "dropping" acid.
#7, some of your points are very valid, but some are far too overbroad. You would treat a low-level offender, often a minor, selling small quantities of a dangerous drug in order to have money to pay his mother's electric bill, on the same level as kingpins with a network of minions so that he can live the "high life"? Such a suggestion could never be just. Even low-level sellers, not just users, often need "rehab," at least in terms of vocational training if they are not addicted to the substances themselves, far more than jail time, which is not beneficial to making them productive members of society.
The expanding-diversion-programs approach sounds like a too-easy way to fix a societal problem (that it takes lots of resources to deal with crime and constitutional rights) by placing the burden squarely on the backs of poor people. Hey, take diversion, we get what we want (your community service or whatever) without having to actually try and convict you. (Along the same lines of coercive plea bargaining.)
@ 10 - Kendall, I agree that both coercive plea bargaining and coercive use of diversion programs are problematic. What I think the earlier proposal was is something different, ie that the maximum penalty be say 200 hours community service for possession of a small quantity of drugs, even if convicted. No possibility of jail time even for the person who passes enough drugs on to a friend for one evening's high. Make distinction between the quantities that denote possession and possession with intent to distribute more realistic. Etc.
As a criminal defense lawyer for over 25 years, my experience has been that diversion programs are utterly useless. They are somewhat akin to a judge ordering a defendant to attend X number of AA or NA meetings. The 12 step programs (and presumably diversion programs, as well) are great and offer wonderful results--for those who actually want to be there. Otherwise they are simply things that have to be ticked off on probation terms. Fines and/or community service hours are typically unpaid (the miscreant has no money) or not done (he/she has no transportation to a site and no money to pay for the supervision). It's all well and good to smugly say that these programs need more money and lots of it. But if this brilliant committee recognizes that the funds are not forthcoming, what is their alternative solution? Apparently a collective shrug.
Well, it was an ABA committee. You didn't miss that part, did you?
The biggest problem with these two "front-end reforms" is that when the defendants can't (or simply don't) pay the fines and fees, there you are. You either have to just blow that off, or bring them back into the criminal justice system, or find a way to collect via civil collection mechanisms (which will also require judicial and legal resources).
@ #12 - Incarcerating individuals costs a lot more and does not deter minor crime very often either. Legalization of small amounts of drugs is not about to happen in most of the country as far as I can tell. Jails are over crowded. Prisons are overcrowded. We incarcerate a larger part of our country than any other country in the world, which is impoverishing our country because of the expense. People ask for longer and longer sentences for minor crimes, even people who occasionally use recreational drugs or drink and drive, because the deterrent effect of harsh sentences is so little, because no one thinks that they are going to be the one caught. Since harsh sentences do not work and have never worked, why not try lighter sentences and at least reduce the cost to tax payers, even if we do not change the crime rate? Why not at least make more room in prison for violent offenders?
We need to be sure the armed forces recruitment are on board with the diversion concept. In the late 1970s, volunteers who had completed the diversion program were not accepted as having a criminal record.
With the over-criminalization of America taking place at all levels of government, tens of thousands of new criminal laws are written every year. (There are so many new laws being written at the federal level, even the legal publishers can't keep up.) With such legislative insanity, THERE IS NO CURE IN SIGHT. Absent overthrow of government, which is probably a disbarable violation for all state bars, there is no solution. Ridiculous stance, if one is required to zealously advocate...
Decades of experience indicates the problem with too much litigation lies in the nature of the offenders. If everyone of them just followed the reasonable laws (even ignored the bad ones) and conformed to social standards, there would be no crisis at either end--prosecution or legislation.
With public education falling in quality annually (for nearly three decades) and parenting becoming a duty of the State, reasonable citizens aren't going to be created--not even in Obama's image. God is being pushed aside leaving society morally corrupt. (No, not "a religious" type but moral.)
What ought to be done is all lawyers take up constitutional law and sue the federal (and state) government as often as humanly possible. Every citizen has had his/her rights violated at least three times (you can research, can't you?) in last year--that's more than a billion cases wanting with non-indigent fees and VERY deep defendant pockets. Having the problem system collapse on itself is a well perfected outcome. Some fed.judges being most deserving.
To Eric and the ABA effort for the article, flotsam. Are there no thinkers among you? (Oh, I forgot, "independent thinking" is a criteria to be added to the federal terrorist list. Nobody wants to be on the "no fly" list with tickets for Gitmo.) Do your research. Read. Law school isn't over upon graduation. Think.
Even the Founders embraced revolution now and then.
@ 16 - I agree that the Constitutional rights of citizens are violated frequently and that we could keep the federal dockets filled with cases if we tried, but the judges would be the same judges and would probably just throw the cases out as fast as we brought them. It still might not be a bad idea as a part of a larger plan whatever that might be.
You seem to despair of changing the legislature. What would happen if more lawyers like you who support the Constitution and fewer laws started running at the local level, educating the electorate and working our way up to Congress on the basis of repealing more laws than we create and creating a simpler, more Constitutional government? Wouldn't that do as much or more good?
I agree that we should all study Constitutional law, always. It is the bedrock of all our law, and should be in our minds in everything. Let's also push for our local school districts to teach the Constitution in the high schools and volunteer to come in every year and give classes to every high school student on what it means and why it matters. No we cannot make an entire generation moral, but we can at least inform them about what our government is supposed to be.
I applaud the ABA and I don't even do drugs
(unless caffeine, Mormon tea, and whiskey count.)
amazon.com/Brigham-Tea-Powder-2-2-lbs/dp/B005DZIDG0 (stir a pinch of this into your Mountain Dew and, voila, "Mormon Dew.")
Anyway, this new idea more than makes up for the dog of an idea which the ABA had earlier, that of
the deregulation of the regulation of dogs.
NPR had a story this afternoon about the judges taking kick backs from the juvenile detention facilities in Luzerne, Pennsylvania. Should be must listening for anyone interested in the future of the justice system.
Hmm... said:
Ok, so my original reaction was that either a crime was committed or it wasn't. However, if they're going to do this, then why not take driving under the influence out of the criminal arena too? I do wonder how often nonviolent drug offenders appear later in other cases like OWIs and violent drug related charges. It looks to me like we're ending the "War on Drugs" and de-criminalizing those types of offenses. Also, if an indigent person is charged a civil fine, then how do they pay the fine that's proposed?Posted: Jan 08, 2013 04:46 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Sean A Hudson said:
In response to the last comment, crime is based on time and context not right and wrong. It has been apparent for the last twenty years or so that the War on Drugs is a futile, highly expensive, endeavor. All of the partisanship aside, it makes sense economically to decriminalize these petty crimes. Also, as stated in the last sentence of the article the "right to counsel' given in Gideon v. Wainwright will become more efficient and sufficient for indigent clients. Indigent clients will receive better representation because attorneys will not be bogged down with heavy caseloads.Posted: Jan 08, 2013 05:28 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
sunforester said:
If our government were truly interested in justice, then we wouldn't have Obama insisting that our states bow to the draconian Federal enforcers who prefer to keep a criminally lucrative Prohibition alive despite our begging and pleading to decriminalize drug possession. If Prohibition did not exist, much of our government would disappear, allowing a significant amount of peace, wealth and freedom to be finally restored to we the people. Our war on drugs is a yet another longstanding Federal power grab of our precious economic resources to keep for themselves and a blow against our personal freedom. Our political elite would not have it any other way.We know exactly where the problem is: the well-rewarded political cronies, criminally minded government unions, corrupt Hollywood stars and freeloaders voted him in again last November. All of you who voted for Obama should hang your heads in shame for supporting this continued oppression and economic depredation of the people by our tyrannical political elite. The day you vote OUT tyrants who prefer their power at the cost of our peace, wealth and freedom, the day we will have a better place for justice in our country, especially for the poor and indigent.
Posted: Jan 08, 2013 06:13 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Walt Fricke said:
#3, you take the daily cake, asserting that the impoverished would be better off under someone who wrote off 47% of the pouplation (which by definition includes all the impoverished).Posted: Jan 09, 2013 05:56 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
mp533 said:
"crime is based on time and context not right and wrong".Really. That is precisely why we have a crime problem and are even considering 'decriminalizing' lesser offences. Criminality was codified for the good of society as a whole. A criminal act is recognized as such because the civil society has agreed that such behavior is disruptive or damaging in some way.
Murder, rape, theft, battery and stupification/addiction via poisonous chemical substances have no temporal component. And context? What is the acceptable context for a drive-by shooting or corporal inhury to a child?
That some members of society wish to give-up on accountability because it's becoming too expensive, does not change the reason for nor the appropriatness of law.
Posted: Jan 09, 2013 02:34 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Sean A Hudson said:
mp533,I think that you are missing the point. Crime is not universal nor are the punishments. For a time alcohol was illegal and prohibited. After public outcry it was deemed a legal substance once again. It's the exact same thing with drugs. Crime rarely has to do with what is right and wrong but the time period and context in which the illegal act took place. Laws do not stop crime. Legislation never stops crime. Usually, the unintended consequences of legislation are worse than the crime it was supposed to prevent. (ie. The War on Drugs and two generations of disenfranchised, mass incarcerated Americans)
Posted: Jan 10, 2013 08:01 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
mp533 said:
Sean A HudsonDrug laws notwithstanding, I submit many laws are universal, i.e. "common law". Nearly all societies prohibit antisocial behaviors such as murder, theft, and the like.
While I think we can agree that the war on drugs has not been an overwhelming success, and I don't believe that an adult conversation regarding marijuana is out of the question, I would never support "legalizing" most or even many drugs. Substances like methamphetamine, phencycladine, MDMA (exstacy), LSD, cocaine and a myriad of others are destructive of the individual and society as a whole.
Anyone who has seen downward spiral of a meth-addict and the violence that inevitably precedes his incarceration, or death, recognizes that this substance is beyond a scurge on mankind. There is no such thing as a "recreational user" of methamphetamine, heroin or cocaine. Even weekly use of any of these will result in addiction in 99 percent of all users. Once heavilly addicted these people are non-productive and resort to feeding their habit by whatever means possible. I am not willing to pay for their habit...by economic subsidy or by criminal victimization.
Society must have rules. I abhor big government and the nanny state, but some rules are necessary. Instead of regulating what kind of lightbulb I can buy, where I can have a smoke, how much water my toilet uses or how many ounces my soft drink cup holds (not to mention how many rounds my AR15 magazine holds), lets get serious about dangerous drugs. Sales of drugs should net a 10 year sentence at hard labor. A second conviction, life. Make prison an unpleasant place to be again. It's a penal institution, not a rehab facility.
Ask anyone who has done time in a military prison at hard labor. Ask them what could make them go back there again. To a man, they will tell you "Nothing" is worth that.
Posted: Jan 11, 2013 02:14 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Charles Victor Szasz said:
My Question is, if we are going to legalize drug use, why wouldn't we first "legalize" equivalent alcohol use. It's insane that an 18 to 20-year-old can smoke pot with impunity, but the same person will often lose there driver's license for mere possession of alcohol. Is it a surprise that kids use the easy-to-conceal illegal drugs rather than the "legal" ones when there is more legal and social stigma associated with smoking cigarettes and drinking beer than with smoking pot and "dropping" acid.Posted: Jan 11, 2013 06:04 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Halli said:
#7, some of your points are very valid, but some are far too overbroad. You would treat a low-level offender, often a minor, selling small quantities of a dangerous drug in order to have money to pay his mother's electric bill, on the same level as kingpins with a network of minions so that he can live the "high life"? Such a suggestion could never be just. Even low-level sellers, not just users, often need "rehab," at least in terms of vocational training if they are not addicted to the substances themselves, far more than jail time, which is not beneficial to making them productive members of society.Posted: Jan 11, 2013 07:29 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Kendall said:
The expanding-diversion-programs approach sounds like a too-easy way to fix a societal problem (that it takes lots of resources to deal with crime and constitutional rights) by placing the burden squarely on the backs of poor people. Hey, take diversion, we get what we want (your community service or whatever) without having to actually try and convict you. (Along the same lines of coercive plea bargaining.)Posted: Jan 11, 2013 10:07 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Kit said:
@ 10 - Kendall, I agree that both coercive plea bargaining and coercive use of diversion programs are problematic. What I think the earlier proposal was is something different, ie that the maximum penalty be say 200 hours community service for possession of a small quantity of drugs, even if convicted. No possibility of jail time even for the person who passes enough drugs on to a friend for one evening's high. Make distinction between the quantities that denote possession and possession with intent to distribute more realistic. Etc.Posted: Jan 12, 2013 04:29 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Faulhaber said:
As a criminal defense lawyer for over 25 years, my experience has been that diversion programs are utterly useless. They are somewhat akin to a judge ordering a defendant to attend X number of AA or NA meetings. The 12 step programs (and presumably diversion programs, as well) are great and offer wonderful results--for those who actually want to be there. Otherwise they are simply things that have to be ticked off on probation terms. Fines and/or community service hours are typically unpaid (the miscreant has no money) or not done (he/she has no transportation to a site and no money to pay for the supervision). It's all well and good to smugly say that these programs need more money and lots of it. But if this brilliant committee recognizes that the funds are not forthcoming, what is their alternative solution? Apparently a collective shrug.Posted: Jan 12, 2013 05:24 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
B. McLeod said:
Well, it was an ABA committee. You didn't miss that part, did you?The biggest problem with these two "front-end reforms" is that when the defendants can't (or simply don't) pay the fines and fees, there you are. You either have to just blow that off, or bring them back into the criminal justice system, or find a way to collect via civil collection mechanisms (which will also require judicial and legal resources).
Posted: Jan 12, 2013 06:26 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Kit said:
@ #12 - Incarcerating individuals costs a lot more and does not deter minor crime very often either. Legalization of small amounts of drugs is not about to happen in most of the country as far as I can tell. Jails are over crowded. Prisons are overcrowded. We incarcerate a larger part of our country than any other country in the world, which is impoverishing our country because of the expense. People ask for longer and longer sentences for minor crimes, even people who occasionally use recreational drugs or drink and drive, because the deterrent effect of harsh sentences is so little, because no one thinks that they are going to be the one caught. Since harsh sentences do not work and have never worked, why not try lighter sentences and at least reduce the cost to tax payers, even if we do not change the crime rate? Why not at least make more room in prison for violent offenders?Posted: Jan 12, 2013 06:55 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Lady Day said:
We need to be sure the armed forces recruitment are on board with the diversion concept. In the late 1970s, volunteers who had completed the diversion program were not accepted as having a criminal record.Posted: Jan 13, 2013 12:08 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Blue & Gold said:
With the over-criminalization of America taking place at all levels of government, tens of thousands of new criminal laws are written every year. (There are so many new laws being written at the federal level, even the legal publishers can't keep up.) With such legislative insanity, THERE IS NO CURE IN SIGHT. Absent overthrow of government, which is probably a disbarable violation for all state bars, there is no solution. Ridiculous stance, if one is required to zealously advocate...Decades of experience indicates the problem with too much litigation lies in the nature of the offenders. If everyone of them just followed the reasonable laws (even ignored the bad ones) and conformed to social standards, there would be no crisis at either end--prosecution or legislation.
With public education falling in quality annually (for nearly three decades) and parenting becoming a duty of the State, reasonable citizens aren't going to be created--not even in Obama's image. God is being pushed aside leaving society morally corrupt. (No, not "a religious" type but moral.)
What ought to be done is all lawyers take up constitutional law and sue the federal (and state) government as often as humanly possible. Every citizen has had his/her rights violated at least three times (you can research, can't you?) in last year--that's more than a billion cases wanting with non-indigent fees and VERY deep defendant pockets. Having the problem system collapse on itself is a well perfected outcome. Some fed.judges being most deserving.
To Eric and the ABA effort for the article, flotsam. Are there no thinkers among you? (Oh, I forgot, "independent thinking" is a criteria to be added to the federal terrorist list. Nobody wants to be on the "no fly" list with tickets for Gitmo.) Do your research. Read. Law school isn't over upon graduation. Think.
Even the Founders embraced revolution now and then.
Posted: Jan 14, 2013 02:17 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Kit said:
@ 16 - I agree that the Constitutional rights of citizens are violated frequently and that we could keep the federal dockets filled with cases if we tried, but the judges would be the same judges and would probably just throw the cases out as fast as we brought them. It still might not be a bad idea as a part of a larger plan whatever that might be.You seem to despair of changing the legislature. What would happen if more lawyers like you who support the Constitution and fewer laws started running at the local level, educating the electorate and working our way up to Congress on the basis of repealing more laws than we create and creating a simpler, more Constitutional government? Wouldn't that do as much or more good?
I agree that we should all study Constitutional law, always. It is the bedrock of all our law, and should be in our minds in everything. Let's also push for our local school districts to teach the Constitution in the high schools and volunteer to come in every year and give classes to every high school student on what it means and why it matters. No we cannot make an entire generation moral, but we can at least inform them about what our government is supposed to be.
Posted: Jan 14, 2013 03:07 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
tim17 said:
Drugs should be legal in the US. I haven't seen to many gang wars over a 6 pack of beer lately.Posted: Jan 14, 2013 07:37 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Tom Youngjohn said:
I applaud the ABA and I don't even do drugs(unless caffeine, Mormon tea, and whiskey count.)
amazon.com/Brigham-Tea-Powder-2-2-lbs/dp/B005DZIDG0 (stir a pinch of this into your Mountain Dew and, voila, "Mormon Dew.")
Anyway, this new idea more than makes up for the dog of an idea which the ABA had earlier, that of
the deregulation of the regulation of dogs.
Posted: Jan 15, 2013 03:05 am CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
Lady Day said:
NPR had a story this afternoon about the judges taking kick backs from the juvenile detention facilities in Luzerne, Pennsylvania. Should be must listening for anyone interested in the future of the justice system.Posted: Jan 15, 2013 09:09 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
SME said:
"Texas, which has stabilized its prison population growth since 2007, are presently experiencing the lowest state crime rates in decades.”Of course....if they decriminalize more behaviors then obviously there will be a drop in crime...it's math!
Posted: Jan 21, 2013 04:27 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
B. McLeod said:
In the case of Texas, they could be doing it by killing more inmates. The dead ones only take up a small space, and they can't reoffend.Posted: Jan 21, 2013 05:55 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
SME said:
True, but even they would still have to be convicted of some crime...which would count against their crime rate.Posted: Jan 21, 2013 05:57 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation
B. McLeod said:
In the year they committed the crime, but never again.Posted: Jan 21, 2013 06:00 pm CST
Reply to this comment | Flag this comment for moderation