5 ms·

I always want to know how many are really in for marijuana, as opposed to this being a plea deal for something else. Since something like 95% of convictions ar

by iguy 9y ago

I always want to know how many are really in for marijuana, as opposed to this being a plea deal for something else. Since something like 95% of convictions are plea deals, it seems to me that the official charges probably aren't a great guide to this, at all. My example is this: the police want to crack down on a gang, and have some informants. They round up all the foot soldiers, who are standing duty on street corners etc. To put them away on conspiracy charges will be hard work, and will expose informants. But they don't have to -- once the gangsters are scared of having last week's murder pinned on them, they'll sign anything with a few years sentence. And so they get locked up for possession. Anyone have any idea how to get a handle on how big this effect is? While the rest of the thread seems to believe 100% of soft drug convictions are for drugs, it seems equally plausible to me that this could be close to 0%. How would we tell?

vertex-four 9y ago
The system should not get to have it both ways - they shouldn’t get to fail to prosecute people for things, then argue that actually everybody should be in prison anyway because of the things they were never convicted of.
- iguy 9y ago
  OK, but aside from discussing "should", I'd like to find information about "is" first. My impression is that what I describe basically is the system right now. But I'd be interested to find ways to understand better whether this impression is true.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    The argument is that "is" is entirely irrelevant, because as far as anyone is concerned, under the law, these people have been convicted of drug crimes. There is no way to tell, short of actually attempting to convict them of something else, whether they're guilty of something else under the law - and so, following the principles of most sane countries, they're by definition innocent of those other crimes. If the prosecutors wanted to convict them of something else, they should've followed the procedure to do so - to refuse to prosecute and then to claim that people are actually guilty of something they've never been tried for is something dictatorships and fascist states do.
    - iguy 9y ago
      I'm very interested in "is" questions even for dictatorships. I think it's worth knowing how the world is really running, even bits of it I violently disagree with. I was truly astonished to learn that plea deals were such a huge majority of convictions. The negotiations which lead to them are entirely behind closed doors. So it looks to me like the US has had an almost complete rewrite of its justice system, while preserving a little of the old UI. I would love to be wrong about this, but actually struggle to find good information (hence my question). But supposing that I am right, do you really think this would not be worth understanding? Would pretending that we are running the old system be a good path towards changing it back?
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        If you want to answer the question of "should we let people solely convicted of drug crimes free", then the point is that whether it might be possible to convict them of something else is irrelevant - at present, they're innocent of those crimes. If you want to discuss plea bargains in general, you're wildly off-topic in a harmful way - there's context in this discussion that you've decided to ignore without saying so, and in doing so, appeared to support the argument that people shouldn't be let free because they might actually be guilty of something else (that they've never been convicted of). I can promise you I'm not the only person who read your comment and thought you were saying that.
        iguy 9y ago
        Well we're all off topic considering that the headline is about dogs' sense of smell! But I thought the point of such discussions was to exchange information... maybe other smart people stop by here, who know things I don't. We aren't gathered here to vote on the fate of these people. And I resent the idea that every comment needs an elaborate bow to your preferred policies, elaborate avoidance of "harmful" ways to read things I apparently said "without saying" them.
        vertex-four 9y ago

by iguy 9y ago

vertex-four 9y ago

The system should not get to have it both ways - they shouldn’t get to fail to prosecute people for things, then argue that actually everybody should be in prison anyway because of the things they were never convicted of.

iguy 9y ago
OK, but aside from discussing "should", I'd like to find information about "is" first. My impression is that what I describe basically is the system right now. But I'd be interested to find ways to understand better whether this impression is true.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  The argument is that "is" is entirely irrelevant, because as far as anyone is concerned, under the law, these people have been convicted of drug crimes. There is no way to tell, short of actually attempting to convict them of something else, whether they're guilty of something else under the law - and so, following the principles of most sane countries, they're by definition innocent of those other crimes. If the prosecutors wanted to convict them of something else, they should've followed the procedure to do so - to refuse to prosecute and then to claim that people are actually guilty of something they've never been tried for is something dictatorships and fascist states do.
  - iguy 9y ago
    I'm very interested in "is" questions even for dictatorships. I think it's worth knowing how the world is really running, even bits of it I violently disagree with. I was truly astonished to learn that plea deals were such a huge majority of convictions. The negotiations which lead to them are entirely behind closed doors. So it looks to me like the US has had an almost complete rewrite of its justice system, while preserving a little of the old UI. I would love to be wrong about this, but actually struggle to find good information (hence my question). But supposing that I am right, do you really think this would not be worth understanding? Would pretending that we are running the old system be a good path towards changing it back?
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      If you want to answer the question of "should we let people solely convicted of drug crimes free", then the point is that whether it might be possible to convict them of something else is irrelevant - at present, they're innocent of those crimes. If you want to discuss plea bargains in general, you're wildly off-topic in a harmful way - there's context in this discussion that you've decided to ignore without saying so, and in doing so, appeared to support the argument that people shouldn't be let free because they might actually be guilty of something else (that they've never been convicted of). I can promise you I'm not the only person who read your comment and thought you were saying that.
      - iguy 9y ago
        Well we're all off topic considering that the headline is about dogs' sense of smell! But I thought the point of such discussions was to exchange information... maybe other smart people stop by here, who know things I don't. We aren't gathered here to vote on the fate of these people. And I resent the idea that every comment needs an elaborate bow to your preferred policies, elaborate avoidance of "harmful" ways to read things I apparently said "without saying" them.
        vertex-four 9y ago