3 ms·

How many of those 400k are solely in for possession? i.e no priors, no anything, just possession

by rajin444 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago
Why should priors enter the picture at all?
- dionidium 4y ago
  For the same reason that if your partner comes home drunk at 5AM and offers a flimsy story about where they were it matters a lot if this is the first time it's ever happened of if they were unfaithful 7 previous times in the marriage. We all understand on a fairly commonsense level that the number of prior offenses tells you something about the likelihood of future offenses and also informs one's willingness to tolerate the marginal offense. If this last of your partner's indiscretions drives you to leave the marriage and your friend says to you, "wow, man, you left a marriage because they came home late one time?" we all understand why that's a ridiculous characterization of what happened. And, yet, when someone with a long rap sheet commits a relatively minor crime and is punished harshly because of their prior offenses we have to endure headlines like, "Man sentenced to prison for stealing candy bar." This headline makes the same mistake as your incredulous friend. The modern backlash against 3-strikes laws, etc, seems to me to be deeply confused. Our language is full of idioms like, "the straw that broke the camel's back," because our willingness to tolerate an offense is obviously informed by the number of previous offenses. How could one's priors possibly not matter?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    When the offense in question shouldn't be an offense in the first place, it really doesn't matter.
    - dionidium 4y ago
      If you're talking about drug possession, then I agree, and it's pretty quickly becoming a non-issue. What DA is going hard on drug possession in 2022? The only qualification I'd make is that I think a prohibition on use for parolees is totally unobjectionable and this is an area where criminal justice reformers lose the plot. Probation and parole are just that -- you're by definition under a watchful eye. The state is saying, in effect, you have not yet demonstrated to us that you can handle free society and until you have you can't get drunk or high. Not only does that strike me as totally reasonable, I'd say that anyone who finds themselves in that situation who nevertheless figures, "why not just get drunk/high, anyway" is a person sending a strong signal that the court was wrong to trust them. Imagine yourself on parole. Would you risk it? Exactly.
      - anonymoushn 4y ago
        If I imagine choosing between being totally unable to make appointments or do paperwork and buying some stuff once, it seems like an easy choice. They also put you back in jail for not showing up to your appointments, you know.

How many of those 400k are solely in for possession? i.e no priors, no anything, just possession

int_19h 4y ago

Why should priors enter the picture at all?

dionidium 4y ago
For the same reason that if your partner comes home drunk at 5AM and offers a flimsy story about where they were it matters a lot if this is the first time it's ever happened of if they were unfaithful 7 previous times in the marriage. We all understand on a fairly commonsense level that the number of prior offenses tells you something about the likelihood of future offenses and also informs one's willingness to tolerate the marginal offense. If this last of your partner's indiscretions drives you to leave the marriage and your friend says to you, "wow, man, you left a marriage because they came home late one time?" we all understand why that's a ridiculous characterization of what happened. And, yet, when someone with a long rap sheet commits a relatively minor crime and is punished harshly because of their prior offenses we have to endure headlines like, "Man sentenced to prison for stealing candy bar." This headline makes the same mistake as your incredulous friend. The modern backlash against 3-strikes laws, etc, seems to me to be deeply confused. Our language is full of idioms like, "the straw that broke the camel's back," because our willingness to tolerate an offense is obviously informed by the number of previous offenses. How could one's priors possibly not matter?
- int_19h 4y ago
  When the offense in question shouldn't be an offense in the first place, it really doesn't matter.
  - dionidium 4y ago
    If you're talking about drug possession, then I agree, and it's pretty quickly becoming a non-issue. What DA is going hard on drug possession in 2022? The only qualification I'd make is that I think a prohibition on use for parolees is totally unobjectionable and this is an area where criminal justice reformers lose the plot. Probation and parole are just that -- you're by definition under a watchful eye. The state is saying, in effect, you have not yet demonstrated to us that you can handle free society and until you have you can't get drunk or high. Not only does that strike me as totally reasonable, I'd say that anyone who finds themselves in that situation who nevertheless figures, "why not just get drunk/high, anyway" is a person sending a strong signal that the court was wrong to trust them. Imagine yourself on parole. Would you risk it? Exactly.
    - anonymoushn 4y ago
      If I imagine choosing between being totally unable to make appointments or do paperwork and buying some stuff once, it seems like an easy choice. They also put you back in jail for not showing up to your appointments, you know.