Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheSpiceIsLife | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue the correct thing to do is wipe all criminal records clean of drug related convictions, and do all the good things in your comment.

View on HN

Drug related convictions are really mostly drug-related plea deals.

We know for sure that the convicts thought it safer to go to prison on drug charges than to go to court. We don't actually know whether they broke some other laws, and the DA simplified the paperwork. Seems to me that we ought to know this, before deciding what to do.

Well if the DA believes they can be tried for other offences the DA should argue that.

I like the idea of a justice system where all trials are public and you're tried for the crime you actually committed. But that ship sailed a long time ago, in the US -- it's something like 95% plea deals now. Only we pay lip service to old ideas.

Under the current system, it seems to me that plea bargains act as contracts "I agree to serve X years & not go to court", despite being phrased as "I admit guilt for Y crime" on paper.

Of course people actually convicted of crime Y also exist. I'm just surprised that this whole thread assumes that only they exist.

There may even have been incentives to turn other crimes into drug charges. DEA grants to local law enforcement tied drug convictions.

Some police officers will even plant drugs at the scene of a crime.[1]

It would be trivial for a police officer to carry a bag of marijuana/ cocaine / amphetamine and arrest anyone they like for possession.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/baltimore-officer-vide...

I would too but does this happen with other crimes when the law changes? I would hope it's automatically applied for everything that becomes legal. Being convicted of a drug crime isn't more unjust than for having gay sex or drinking alcohol.

Here’s at least one example where a progressive modern democracy agrees with your point:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/criminal-conviction...

They did break the law though, the entrepreneurs jumped the wagon when it was legal.

There is another big difference and it's taxes.

But the reason we have laws isn't to stop people from breaking them, it's to stop people from doing $BadThing.

Breaking the law isn't itself immoral, it's just one person breaking someone elses rule. Who is to say the law itself wasn't immoral? Certainly the application of the law in this case has been wildly immoral.

There is a data point in "Person X broke a law Y times" but I don't think it's an important one. We all break laws, probably unknowingly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com