Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

Interesting. A good idea, not worth getting a record over.

I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

View on HN

Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing.

If somebody guilty of a bigger crime is actually released because of this, the AG's prosecutor bears the guilt: it's still the just thing to do.

> Making the justice system actually prove its cases instead of leaning on trumped up nonsense like cannabis is a very good thing.

As a counterpoint this may make the justice system pursue larger charges going forward.

If a street level dealer was caught, and they offered a plea deal of possession to save time, trial, legal expenses, etc that person will now be pardoned.

If the DoJ doesn't like this outcome it could lead to them going after everyone for full charges and basically end plea deals.

Good. Lots of innocent people are pressured into bullshit plea deals under the threat that they'll be charged for some bigger chrime that the prosecutor doesn't actually have the evidence to prove.

If the prosecution has the goods, make them prove it. Otherwise they shouldn't be able to use empty threats to brow beat someone into a guilty plea.

> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

I'm aware of cases like this that happened a long time ago. Domestic abusers who got put away on drug charges because it was easier than the alternatives. I still think this pardon is an overall good thing.

Agreed.

> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried.

If the charge was important and also provable, it should have been charged. And in many cases, the statute of limitation would prevent charging the conduct now, anyway.

So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger. Yes that is one of the many unintended side effects we will see.

> So, they may soon be freeing folks who are still a danger.

Probably not; federally, simple possession of marijuana carries a maximum 1 year sentence and had 145 convictions in 2021, with zero prisoners as of January 2022 in federal custody solely on simple possession of marijuana charges.

The impact of this is almost entirely on clearing past records, not releasing current offenders.

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/weighing-impa...

Thanks for clarifying that!

> I fear the unintended side effects. Like, somebody put away on such a charge because it was easier than the more important charge. Now gonna have to be retried. For example.

Any such person should unquestionably be released.

Easy for us to say, far away from the domestic abuse or child endangerment issue. Armchair justice is so much simpler than the real thing.

I hope you're not suggesting we lock people up who have not been convicted of a crime.

I just imagine that the system is not black and white. And again, armchair logic is fine from where we're sitting. Folks may also be harmed by this.

I suggest there will be unintended consequences.

Sure. All actions have consequences. Folks may even benefit.

Out of all the potential consequences, you're focused on this one. I'm just trying to understand your intent. Are you suggesting alternatives?

The consequence of this decision is that people will be released if their convictions are for these certain crimes. That consequence is absolutely intended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com