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

[Rhondazvous]

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.

[Anomalocaris]

I guess that depends on whether you think breaking the law when it is still the law should be in itself be punishable, or if it is only the fact that you've done a bad thing that is punishable.

[Alex K]

Yes, if only because the US needs to free all the people arrested for minor drug offences yesterday.

[Chad32]

If it's an unjust law, like pot being illegal, then yes they should be free. Pot is no more a gateway drug than coffee is, and it has medical uses.

[Mister Agenda]

If it's an unjust law, abso-fucking-lutely.

[Longhorn]

That would mean the law was unjust and they were wrongly jailed, so yes

[Jenny A]

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.

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.

[rexbeccarox]

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.

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?

[Dystopia]

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

A curious fact - In Portugal (inspired in the Germanic civil law system so the Germans must be alike) if you commit a crime punishable by (random example) 1-5 years in prison and before you go to trial (but after being arrested) a law comes out saying the penalty changes (for example to 1-3 years) you will be sentenced with the new law and not the old one if the result is more favourable - BUT, if the penalty is harsher, you will still get the old law. The reasoning behind is that any criminal could argue in court that he/she would not have committed the crime if he/she knew the penalty would be higher.

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

[Dystopia]

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?

To be fair, this is only true if (1) You accept human rights exist and find a way to prove there is an objective sect of values (2) If you follow a liberal/libertarian principle of self-determination because there are people like me who see some behaviours as so self-destructive that society should put an end to it - I don't think this is the case for weed though