LA County Is Using An Algorithm To Clear 50,000 Pot Convictions Faster (engadget.com) 89
Los Angeles and San Joaquin counties have teamed up with Code for America to help clear around 54,000 marijuana convictions. "The nonprofit's algorithm will aid prosecutors by automatically evaluating whether a case is eligible for dismissal or resentencing," reports Engadget. From the report: The two counties have been working with Code for America since July to examine marijuana conviction data, as automating the process should help them clear cases much more quickly than through entirely manual processes. There are an estimated 50,000 eligible cases in Los Angeles County and 4,000 in San Joaquin County. Code for America's Clear My Record system also helped San Francisco clear more than 8,000 marijuana convictions.
"As technology advances and the criminal justice system evolves, we as prosecutors must do our part to pursue innovative justice procedures on behalf of our constituents," Los Angeles County DA Jackie Lacey said. "This collaboration will improve people's lives by erasing the mistakes of their past and hopefully lead them on a path to a better future. Helping to clear that path by reducing or dismissing cannabis convictions can result in someone securing a job or benefitting from other programs that may have been unavailable to them in the past." Last year's passage of Assembly Bill 1793 gave district attorneys until July 1st, 2020 to review convictions eligible for downgrading or expungement and act accordingly.
"As technology advances and the criminal justice system evolves, we as prosecutors must do our part to pursue innovative justice procedures on behalf of our constituents," Los Angeles County DA Jackie Lacey said. "This collaboration will improve people's lives by erasing the mistakes of their past and hopefully lead them on a path to a better future. Helping to clear that path by reducing or dismissing cannabis convictions can result in someone securing a job or benefitting from other programs that may have been unavailable to them in the past." Last year's passage of Assembly Bill 1793 gave district attorneys until July 1st, 2020 to review convictions eligible for downgrading or expungement and act accordingly.
Re: (Score:1)
Very true ^
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You better work on changing the law they are obligated to enforce.
They are not obligated to enforce. They have prosecutorial discretion.
Eric Holder did not prosecute dope possession in states that had legalized it. Jeff Sessions made an explicit decision to do so.
If you believe in states rights and personal liberty, then at least on this issue, it is obvious which political party you should oppose.
Re: That's nice and all (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a better idea, how about you learn about the candidates and vote for, or against, the person. Instead of following this political party bullshit.
Montana, a very conservative and Republican State, was one of the first few to legalize medical pot. Your Part Line ideas are horseshit, Bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Seattle and San Francisco ... There's a reason people don't want to live in Democrat states and towns
Ah, that explains why real-estate prices have been going down in Seattle and San Francisco. Oh, wait ...
Re: (Score:2)
It's medicine that helps people. You're wrong if it's not legal for medical use.
It's also less harmful than other recreational drugs, and reduces the use of those other drugs. It is, in fact, less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. It's wrong on every level when it's not legal for recreational use, too. (And why is it still legal to smoke tobacco in public, when that has proven harmful effects?)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh huh...
From Holder we heard plenty of tough talk [reuters.com] also. And from Sessions [cbsnews.com]? Little man would never attack anything his own size...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to solve the derelict problem is a comprehensive national effort. This is the only true final solution.
What should this effort be? I cannot think of one myself though it seems business models like we see in SF where there are phenomenally wealthy people surrounded by bums and tent cities.
Re: (Score:2)
As is the key point for all recreational drugs, including alcohol, can be used or abused. Sensible use is largely harmless, abuse is harmful.
In my experience of friends with drug issues,(working in the music biz included) the vast majority deaths that have occoured have been due to alcohol.
Temperance died for four and a half years (Score:2)
The temperance movement died nearly 100 years ago.
Temperance died for four and a half years, from the Volstead repeal (February 1933) to the Marihuana Tax Act (August 1937).
Re: (Score:2)
What's the SQL look like? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd love to see what really is behind the magic 'algorithm' here. Somehow I'm betting it's something like
UPDATE table_name
SET expunge to 'yes'
WHERE conviction_type = 'misdemeanor' and substance_type = 'marijuana'
Re:What's the SQL look like? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a lot more complicated than that. Many people who are in jail or prison for "drug crimes" actually did a whole lot more and pleaded down to a drug crime during pre-trial negotiations. This is one reason why we have so many people in jail for "drug crimes".
Sometimes a person with a drug conviction really is only guilty of a drug offence. However, if they pleaded down a robbery or weapons offence or whatever then you probably don't want to expunge that.
Re: (Score:1)
However, if they pleaded down a robbery or weapons offence or whatever then you probably don't want to expunge that.
I don't believe that's true. From what I've read the law only states that any misdemeanor convictions be expunged, and any felony convictions be expunged as long the individual doesn't have any violent convictions.
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/01/582513410/with-marijuana-legal-in-california-san-francisco-is-dismissing-thousands-of-conv
What you're saying isn't constitutional. If the cas
Re: What's the SQL look like? (Score:1)
Found the racist!
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, we have a "plea bargain" system. Lets say I get caught go 85mph in a 15mph school zone. I'm guilty. But I can strike a bargain where, rather than doing a trial (which is time consuming and expensive and inconveniences a bunch of jurors), I instead plea guilty to going 25mph in a 15mph, pay my ticket and move on.
The catch is you ca
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Sometimes a person with a drug conviction really is only guilty of a drug offence. However, if they pleaded down a robbery or weapons offence or whatever then you probably don't want to expunge that.
A person's plea deal is whatever they are guilty of and no more.
You can't treat someone differently after a conviction based on what other fantasy convictions you think might have happened but were dropped. This isn't a video game or a cop drama. These are people, not animals, not pixels, not fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. There is no law you have to expunge anything. They can look at the old plea documents and make a determination.
Yes, they are people. Often people who committed actual crimes (not BS pot crimes) but were given reduced charges in a plea deal to avoid a felony record.
sure you can (Score:1)
It's actually pretty standard for a judge to look at the whole situation when passing sentence, so them looking at the whole situation for rendering relief makes sense as well.
The sentence is limited to the actual charge and what congress set as the penalty, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
Given the crime rates, they clearly under-police certain minority neighborhoods. By your logic, black people don't deserve the same level of safety as white people.
Re: (Score:3)
Source? You can't be found guilty of a crime unless the state has some sort of evidence you committed that crime, even if you plead guilty. Sometimes a guilty plea is not enough to be convicted.
If you were arrested for something that wasn't drugs, and you didn't have drugs in your possession, you can't plead down to a drug crime.
Second of all, who in their right mind would plead down to a drug crime? They carry additional penalties versus other crimes that follows you for the rest of your life. Ineligible
Re: (Score:1)
Second of all, who in their right mind would plead down to a drug crime? They carry additional penalties versus other crimes that follows you for the rest of your life. Ineligible for financial aid to better yourself after getting out of prison. Nobody is going to hire someone with a drug conviction, they would much rather hire someone convicted of a violent crime like assault!
That depends on the business, I'd think? Also, so many drug users out there that, especially in places like California, that a drug bust only isn't going to be seen as a big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly: they didn't necessarily too any of those things.
Under the US system common tactic of prosecutors is to fling vast amounts of bogus crap with really high sentences at someone accused to the point where it's worth falsely admitting to the a crime because a conviction of one of the others had such a harsh penalty.
Land of the free indeed.
Re: What's the SQL look like? (Score:2)
But without coerced false confessions, how will we keep our gulag full?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess it's more likely a nasty excel macro.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if it is, I figure that a macro that is 90% effective but allows 100 times the reviews to be made would actually result in more justice/fairness/released persons than them having to do all the reviews manually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Mistakes of the past?" (Score:3)
"This collaboration will improve people's lives by erasing the mistakes of their past and hopefully lead them on a path to a better future."
What a condescending, arrogant statement from DA Jackie Lacey.
The process currently underway, in which old convictions are expunged, is not about the convicted individuals "turning over a new leaf" and deciding to straighten up and fly right. Nor is it about the state suddenly adopting an attitude of forgiveness. It's about the state acknowledging that it made a mistake, and punished people that it should not have.
And the "path to a better future" includes legal weed, for those who want it.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're miss-reading the DA. The mistake is clearly the mistake of the State. And leading to a better life is clearly the result of fixing the mistake, and clearing the record.
Cheer up man, you won! This is what it feels like when the world changes for the better. You have to accept that sometimes the government makes statements that the war on drugs was actually a Bad Thing.
Re: "Mistakes of the past?" (Score:2)
I understand your point, but I really donâ(TM)t think I am misreading the DAâ(TM)s statement. Lacey refers to âoepeople erasing the mistakes of THEIR pastââ" the implication is that the mistake was committed by them, and not the state. If Lacey meant the latter, itâ(TM)s a damn peculiar way to phrase things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
" It's about the state acknowledging that it made a mistake, and punished people that it should not have."
So... it's a mistake for a governing body to punish people for breaking a law that has been on the books since before those people were born?
Yes, if it is an illegal law, which it always was.
James Madison deliberately wrote the Bill of Rights to be open-ended, retaining to the people any individual rights they wanted to assert (9th and 10th Amendments, unspecified rights retained by the people, unspecified rights reserved to the people). This was done to address the objection of the Anti-Federalists that any finite Bill of Rights would necessarily miss rights that turned out to be really important (they certainly called that one correctly!). I
Where is the GitHub Project? (Score:2)
Are they accepting pull requests? I have some suggestions.
Re: (Score:2)
Their still blaming the pot smoker. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Laws being retrospective doesn't mean that anyone other than the person who broke the laws made a "mistake". That is of course you are assuming that people are "law abiding citizens", I mean if you willfully break the law it's not a mistake.
Times change.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point, but the law that matters is the law as it was at the time.
Look at it the other way, it would hardly be fair to convict someone during prohibition for selling booze a decade before it came into effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's now legal, doesn't that mean that the state made the mistake when the convictions were made, and not the pot user?
The user made the mistake of getting caught.
Clear the unjust (Score:2)
Hard problem. Letâ(TM)s get started. (Score:2)
if Prisoner race is Caucasian then continue consideration, else return false.
Clear convictions? (Score:2)
Perhaps as far as state legal issues are concerned. But on a federal level? Never. That pot bust is going to follow you forever through security and background checks. And as more private services utilize background checks for things like apartment rentals, bank loans, employment applications, you will quietly be turned down. And never know why.