Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?

[rexbeccarox]

Ok, then. Assuming human rights exist, and assuming there are behaviors so self-destructive society should stop (something I disagree with): how is limiting things that are almost completely unharmful (ie. weed) anything but a human rights violation?

[Dystopia]

I don't disagree but what right do you think would be violated with precision? Smoking weed is a possibility, but not exactly a human right, at least not as much as the right to live, to physical well being, etc. I'm skeptical of the claim because at the same time anti-smoking bigots are using human rights and public health as an excuse to restrict smoking and some are planning on banning it. So why does it go both ways? Well what would you say about someone who consents into slavery? Isn't that behaviour so self-destructive (and by definition means the death of your personhood) that we should put an active stop to it by making it illegal to be a slave?

[Jackalope]

This is particularly an issue in the case of Marijuana. should people convicted of such things have their records sponged when their state decides Maryjane is no longer a crime? Especially if the government finds a way to collect taxes off the sale of  an erstwhile controlled substance. or illegal activities.

Generally speaking, I think people should not be forgiven for activities that were illegal at the time they were committed even if they become legal later.  This is because it is important that people obey the law.

Is it? Was it important for southern blacks to obey Jim Crow laws during the civil rights movement of the 1960's?

I don't think it's important to obey unjust laws, while I simultaneously recognize the state's interest in prosecuting and imprisoning people people for doing so. It doesn't make it right, though.

How is justice served by continuing to imprison people for things that are not unlawful, and never should have been in the first place?

[Jenny A]

---

Generally speaking, I think people should not be forgiven for activities that were illegal at the time they were committed even if they become legal later.  This is because it is important that people obey the law.

But I can think of a number of exceptions mostly having to do with laws that were abolished because they violated human rights, the Constitution, or both.  So for example, a couple jailed for entering into an interracial sexual relationship at a time when that was illegal should not only be freed but also to have the record expunged.  Similarly, anyone convicted of a pre Roe v. Wade abortion in the first trimester should also be freed and the record should be expunged.

---

I don't think that prohibiting the use of marijuana is a human rights violation.  And I don't think that states that have made it legal have done so for that reason. So I don't think those convicted of sale or possession should automatically be released from prison.  However, considering large number of people who are incarcerated for this reason who are not otherwise criminals, and the disproportionately large sentences given for possession, I would applaud a law releasing people whose only crime was possession of marijuana and/or selling small amounts of it.

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the part I bolded. How is limiting what people can do with their own bodies anything but a human rights violation?

You're going to have to explain to me when and why doing anything you like with your body became a human right. Many, many laws regulate what you can do with your body.

[Jenny A]

Generally speaking, I think people should not be forgiven for activities that were illegal at the time they were committed even if they become legal later.  This is because it is important that people obey the law.

Is it?  Was it important for southern blacks to obey Jim Crow laws during the civil rights movement of the 1960's?

I don't think it's important to obey unjust laws, while I simultaneously recognize the state's interest in prosecuting and imprisoning people people for doing so.  It doesn't make it right, though.

How is justice served by continuing to imprison people for things that are not unlawful, and never should have been in the first place?

I said, not if the law was unconstitutional or a human rights violation.  The Jim Crow laws were both.

[rexbeccarox]

I don't disagree but what right do you think would be violated with precision? Smoking weed is a possibility, but not exactly a human right, at least not as much as the right to live, to physical well being, etc. I'm skeptical of the claim because at the same time anti-smoking bigots are using human rights and public health as an excuse to restrict smoking and some are planning on banning it. So why does it go both ways? Well what would you say about someone who consents into slavery? Isn't that behaviour so self-destructive (and by definition means the death of your personhood) that we should put an active stop to it by making it illegal to be a slave?

Well, because we differ in our opinions about what people can do with their own bodies, we probably won't come to an agreement on this, but I'll address your points:

1. the right to live and physical well-being are both individuals' choices, IMO.  I think assisted suicide should be legal, for example. 

2. I think the idea of banning smoking altogether is ridiculous.  

3. if a consenting adult of sound mind consents to slavery, I have no problem with it.

[rexbeccarox]

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the part I bolded. How is limiting what people can do with their own bodies anything but a human rights violation?

You're going to have to explain to me when and why doing anything you like with your body became a human right.  Many, many laws regulate what you can do with your body.

... but I can't think of one of those laws I agree with.  Seatbelts and helmets, for example.  

[Jenny A]

As a law student I'm gonna disagree with Jenny (knowing she's an expert in the field ) -

I was giving a philosophic opinion, not a legal one.  

When we make something legal (and assuming it was illegal before) it means that we decided something that was once immoral, wrong or harmful is now acceptable or at least ignorable/tolerable -

Not necessarily.  Many countries once required drivers to use the left side of the road and now require them to use the right side.  Tax laws change continuously, but not necessarily for moral reasons.

And changing the law may not be because we find an activity now acceptable, but rather an acknowledgment that prohibiting the activity actually causes the practice of the activity to rise, or creates so many other negative consequences that we'd rather put up with the activity than suffer the side affects of making illegal.

For this reason, keeping people in jail for something that is legal is completely contradictory with the principle of justice and in particular what in Europe we call the legalistic principle - No one shall be imprisoned by a crime that is not expressly predicted on the law and by the law. I don't think it's a reason for people to not obey the law because there are some things we know will never be legalised. This is, of course, assuming our laws progress (not regress), meaning that each new law is better than the older one.

There is no such principle under U.S. law.  Although, there is a principle that laws held unconstitutional may be repealed retroactively.  In which case violators would indeed be freed.  My personal opinion, not an opinion of was the law is, is that if we acknowledge that the law was immoral, a human rights violation, or unconstitutional, then people previously convicted should be freed.  In some cases they ought even to be compensated.  

But many laws are merely judgment calls in gray moral areas.  I see no problem in retroactively forgiving people by law.  But merely repealing a law should not have that affect.

For drug trafficking, I would not forgive because it would still be completely illegal under new laws - You could buy marijuana (assuming we legalise it) in shops, but individual people without authorizations cannot sell it on the street - Not to mention that trafficking usually involves other small/medium scale crimes

I'm not sure the results of that line of reasoning would always be for the best.  After all, you can't comply with regulations until they are passed.

[Dystopia]

Well, because we differ in our opinions about what people can do with their own bodies, we probably won't come to an agreement on this, but I'll address your points:

I support bodily autonomy and self-determination - I just don't think it is an absolute right (none is)

1. the right to live and physical well-being are both individuals' choices, IMO.  I think assisted suicide should be legal, for example. 

You don't understand my point - The right to live and physical well being are inalienable rights, meaning no one can harm you or take your rights away. The right to live means, above all else, that you have the right to circulate without being murdered and the right to physical well being means people can't beat you for fun or use your body for scientific experimentations (just a couple of examples). Assisted suicide isn't a problem because, with consent, some rights can be restricted by yourself.

2. I think the idea of banning smoking altogether is ridiculous.  

Great, but many people disagree.

3. if a consenting adult of sound mind consents to slavery, I have no problem with it.

I entirely disagree. If you support human rights, then you must know human rights' theory is based on the principle of inviolability  and inalienability - Meaning that you have personhood, rights and you can't lose them. Consenting into slavery and becoming a slave means, by definition, losing your rights and becoming property of someone else, you have the same legal status as a chair or a desk. So, if you support this, does it mean it's ok for me to have a slave, rape them, beat them and use them for labour as I please? Your quest for individual autonomy is familiar, but it has contradictions - Namely that you think human rights are important but also don't mind people losing them. That's not going to work.

I see no problem with weed both from an individualist and collectivist standpoint.


As for seatbelts and helmets laws - When I think of those laws I don't really think about the terrifying burden of wearing them, but of the children and families who lose relatives because they were distracted and didn't wear it... Not to mention it's a great way to grab some state-funding that is necessary to run public services. A fine is a healthy reminder to wear your seatbelt - My dad only wore them because he was afraid of being fined - And it worked. When you drive you are using your vehicle but roads and public spaces are usually the government's property - If the government provides a space for you to drive it is only fair to abide by the road's rules - Namely how to drive, park, brake, turn, wear the seatbelt, etc.

[Dystopia]

Not necessarily.  Many countries once required drivers to use the left side of the road and now require them to use the right side.  Tax laws change continuously, but not necessarily for moral reasons.

IMO, that doesn't classify as a decriminalization/legalisation, it's merely changing the law. I'm talking about specific cases when we decide something becomes legal after being illegal. Tax laws usually change the amount etc but unless you legalise tax evasion there's no reason this applies here

And changing the law may not be because we find an activity now acceptable, but rather an acknowledgment that prohibiting the activity actually causes the practice of the activity to rise, or creates so many other negative consequences that we'd rather put up with the activity than suffer the side affects of making illegal.

I don't see any circumstance when this would apply - If something is wrong/harmful/immoral to the extent it is illegal then I don't see reasons to legalise the behaviour - The fact we can drop crime rates with weed legalisation is a nice bonus, but the main argument is that drugs are a health concern/individual choice and not a criminal activity (consumption at least)

There is no such principle under U.S. law.  Although, there is a principle that laws held unconstitutional may be repealed retroactively.  In which case violators would indeed be freed.  My personal opinion, not an opinion of was the law is, is that if we acknowledge that the law was immoral, a human rights violation, or unconstitutional, then people previously convicted should be freed.  In some cases they ought even to be compensated.  

Can you be sentenced for a crime that is not specifically on the State's law? How?

But many laws are merely judgment calls in gray moral areas.  I see no problem in retroactively forgiving people by law.  But merely repealing a law should not have that affect.

I agree.

I'm not sure the results of that line of reasoning would always be for the best.  After all, you can't comply with regulations until they are passed.

Why?