A Change In Marijuana Prosecution Eyed (Chicago Considers Bid To Issue Fines In Certain Cases)

Boston Globe ^ | Sept. 26, 2004

[tacticalogic]

And this one is, so say the federal courts in which it was challenged.

So far. Think Clarence Thomas is going to buy it?

[eno_]

Which do you think would be the better culture:

a) A culture of maximum individual freedom and fairly minimal government, such as existed up to the New Deal?

or

b) A culture with lots of laws, police, and prisons, such as we have today?

[robertpaulsen]

"They confiscate our money through taxation and then dole it out to our local governments ..."

Yes they do. Federal highway funds are another great source of bribe money.

"I'm shocked to hear that any place would have a 90% dismissal rate ..."

My guess is that the marijuana charge was brought in conjunction with the main charge -- then they dismissed the marijuana charge, keeping the other.

I understand your point. My only point was that people are going to continue to make the claim that "the laws aren't working, so change the laws" when they should be saying, "the laws aren't working, so let's start enforcing them and punishing the offenders".

Don't blame the laws. It's like people say the death penalty doesn't deter murder. I bet if we executed those 15,000 murderers each year it would have an effect. (What do we execute? 10?)

[robertpaulsen]

The questions never stop, do they? Why don't you look up the answer yourself and get back to me?

[eno_]

If you educated yourself on the outrages caused by the government wielding illegitimate power - and the Drug War is just a small part of it - you might, just might, like the taste of bootblack licked off of jackboots just a bit less.

[robertpaulsen]

What do you think is the better way to return to the pre-New Deal culture?

A) First, maximize individual freedom by eliminating laws against drugs, gambling, pornography, and prostitution. Then, after we've swelled the ranks of those using government services such as medical care, foodstamps, housing, welfare, etc., then we cut the legs out from under them by eliminating all these government social programs. Or

B) First, get rid of the nanny state that takes care of us from cradle to grave. Eliminate welfare, food stamps, HUD, Education, Commerce, and all these alphabet agencies. Then, and only then, do we look at changing our laws.

[headsonpikes]

We are certainly in a culture war right now, and have been so since WWI.

On the one hand are the state-worshipping utopians of all stripes, and on the other are we upholders of the English Enlightenment.

The other bunch are all socialists, at heart, even if they are soi-disant conservatives. ;^)

[eno_]

You will never eradicate the whoremonger and addict.

We can have, and not too long ago did have, a much smaller government.

If you predicate the second on achieving the first, you will never get there. You are a "social conservative" in the same way there are supposed "fiscal conservatives" that think spending cuts must come before tax cuts.

[tacticalogic]

What do you think is the better way to return to the pre-New Deal culture?

The post New Deal culture we need to get rid of is inside the beltway.

[tacticalogic]

If you predicate the second on achieving the first, you will never get there.

I'm pretty sure he knows that.

[LadyDoc]

Don't know where the "but the judges throw them out anyway" comes from , but I suspect most of these "marijuana" users are poly pharmacy types...

But THC tends to test positive for three months, and crank and crack only for 48 hours...

So they are essentially going to allow all druggies a free pass...after all, they aren't harming anyone are they? Sarcasm...except for their spouses, kids, etc.

The next time you hear about the suicide rate in teenagers, just remember they are probably products of a druggie parent, and probably are using drugs too...

But the scientologists are only upset about prozac, not meth...

[tacticalogic]

Don't know where the "but the judges throw them out anyway" comes from , but I suspect most of these "marijuana" users are poly pharmacy types...

But THC tends to test positive for three months, and crank and crack only for 48 hours...

So they are essentially going to allow all druggies a free pass...after all, they aren't harming anyone are they? Sarcasm...except for their spouses, kids, etc.

IOW, we should be throwing the book at them because you suspect they're doing more than just smoking a little pot.

[TKDietz]

"My guess is that the marijuana charge was brought in conjunction with the main charge -- then they dismissed the marijuana charge, keeping the other."

If that were the case, it wouldn't make any sense to just ticket marijuana smokers, would it? If the police are going to have to show up in court anyway most of the time, why would anyone consider only ticketing these people? The idea is free up police officers' time and reduce the burden on the courts. If there are other criminal charges and there is going to have to be a hearing anyway, it's no big deal to take care of the marijuana charge along with the other charge or charges pending before the court. Where the new policy would help is where marijuana possession is the only charge or where any other "charges" are things like traffic violations where people are ticketed, but not required to go to court unless they want to fight the ticket. In most of the simple marijuana possession cases our office gets there wouldn't be a need for a hearing but for the marijuana charge (and the paraphernalia charge if they have papers or a pipe when they are caught).

[TKDietz]

"But THC tends to test positive for three months, and crank and crack only for 48 hours..."

Was that a typo about THC or are you really that poorly informed?

[Wolfie]

Here's a follow up article that examines just what kind of cases we're talking about.

Cop's Pot Ticket Idea Merits a Trial Run

Source: Daily Southtown

Chicago police officers are wasting a lot of their time and the taxpayers' money on misdemeanor marijuana cases. That was the central point last week of a pitch made by police Sgt. Thomas Donegan to his boss, Supt. Phil Crane. Donegan submitted some statistics to the superintendent, analyzing the outcome of misdemeanor possession cases involving 30 grams or less. For readers who don't have a metric conversion chart at hand, 28 grams is an ounce.

Here's what Donegan told Cline: 94 percent of cases involving less than 2.5 grams of pot got dropped last year because prosecutors didn't think they were worth pursuing, or there was something wrong with the arrest, or because the arresting officer didn't show up in court. In cases involving between 2.5 and 10 grams, 81 percent were dropped. Fifty-two percent of cases involving between 10 and 30 grams were dropped.

Donegan told his boss it's a waste of time for police officers to arrest and book somebody who is almost certainly going to be let off, and it's a waste of money to have cops spending their time making such arrests and going to court to testify about them.

There were more than 20,000 arrests in Chicago last year involving 30 grams or less, and almost 7,000 of them centered on 2.5 grams or less.

Donegan suggested that the police department could save time and the city would probably make money if, rather than arresting people for possessing minimal amounts of marijuana, police were allowed to write them a ticket.

Proponents of a ticket system believe people would be inclined to pay a fine of $250, $500 or $1,000 rather than fight the charges, so police officers wouldn't have to go to court to testify. The proposal would result in more marijuana arrests ending in a legal sanction, and the city would gain revenue rather than waste it.

The village of Darien in the western suburbs has handled misdemeanor marijuana cases with tickets since the 1970s. Police officers there have the option of writing a ticket or making a misdemeanor arrest, depending on the circumstances.

We think it would make sense for Chicago to try something along the same lines. Mayor Richard Daley seemed to say last week that he liked the idea, although one of his spokesmen backed away from the proposal the same day.

Donegan's idea makes sense to us, although we think his schedule of fines is too high. Someone facing a $500 or $1,000 fine is not necessarily going to pay it to save an hour or two, and if people don't pay the fines, cops will be right back in court.

Daley, the police department and the state's attorney ought to sit down and talk about this proposal and figure out a way to give it at least a trial run.

[robertpaulsen]

"94 percent of cases involving less than 2.5 grams of pot got dropped last year because prosecutors didn't think they were worth pursuing, or there was something wrong with the arrest, or because the arresting officer didn't show up in court."

And how does this 94% break down? If it's (hypothetically):

A) Prosecutors didn't think they were worth pursuing, 4%
B) There was something wrong with the arrest, 15%, or
C) Because the arresting officer didn't show up in court, 75%

...then we know where the problem lies, don't we?

[robertpaulsen]

That is a good point. However.

Ever watch a high-speed chase on COPS? I wonder, since the guy is going to court anyway, how does the judge handle the 4 counts: Running a stop sign, 6 counts: Running a red light, 24 counts: Failure to signal a lane change, etc.

Or does he just throw those out in favor of the charges for fleeing a police officer, resisting arrest, etc.?

But, seriously, I don't know what the judges are throwing out. Knowing Chicago cops, it could be that they're using the charge to hassle the gang-bangers. They check out some "suspicious activity", find a joint, see the judge. Give these guys a ticket, and they'll use it to wipe their .... nose.

I can just hear the dialog during a "ticketed" marijuana arrest:

Cop: Got an ID?
Doper: Nope
Cop: Name?
Doper: Mr. Leroy Washington
Cop: Address?
Doper: Uh. That building, over there. Uh. Apartment 3b. I mean 3c.

(Sounds of the rest of the gang laughing in the background)

Cop: Well, here's your $500. ticket, Mr. Washington. Be sure to pay it.
Doper: Uh. Yessir. I surely will.

(Now the gang is on the ground, howling, tears running down their faces)

Yep, that'll teach them to respect Chicago cops.

[TKDietz]

"Ever watch a high-speed chase on COPS? I wonder, since the guy is going to court anyway, how does the judge handle the 4 counts: Running a stop sign, 6 counts: Running a red light, 24 counts: Failure to signal a lane change, etc.

Or does he just throw those out in favor of the charges for fleeing a police officer, resisting arrest, etc.?"

I don't know about Chicago, but where I live a guy with that many charges probably wouldn't get any slack. Judges here don't normally throw anything out unless the prosecutor recommends it as part of a plea bargain. Normally, if I have a guy charged with possession of marijuana and a minor traffic offense or two, I'm much more likely to get rid of one or more of the minor traffic offenses than the more serious pot charge. Then they'll fine the guy $630 on the pot charge, give him a 90 day suspended sentence, 8 months probation where he'll meet with a probation officer once a month and pay the fee for this, take his license for six months and make him complete and pay for a marijuana offender program which counts as drug treatment for statistical purposes. If he's been fleeing from the cops he's liable to get jail time too and they aren't likely to drop a fleeing charge unless it was kind of a bogus charge to begin with.

"Doper: Mr. Leroy Washington"

Good jab at Mr. Leroy. :) By the way, I think "doper" actually means people who do hard drugs in most places. If I ask my clients about smoking dope they are liable to reply, "no way, I might smoke a little weed but I never touch dope." I have to make sure to use the right words or there is liable to be a mix-up that might hurt us in trial or plea negotiations. It would be better to use "stoner" or "pothead" to describe heavy pot smokers if you want to use a derogatory term that won't cause confusion. Personally, I wouldn't refer to a casual pot smoker as a stoner or pothead anymore than I would call a casual drinker a drunk. But I understand why your motivation.

"Cop: Well, here's your $500. ticket, Mr. Washington. Be sure to pay it.
Doper: Uh. Yessir. I surely will.

(Now the gang is on the ground, howling, tears running down their faces)

Yep, that'll teach them to respect Chicago cops."

Harassing gang members over petty crimes that will be dismissed anyway won't teach them respect for the law either. Actually, harassing anyone, gangster or not, over something as minor as marijuana has exactly the opposite effect on people. It makes them have nothing but contempt for the law and law enforcement in general. I was never caught with marijuana back in my pot smoking days, but I viewed the police with contempt, as did just about everyone else I knew who smoked pot. We knew the police would arrest us if they caught us with pot, so we didn't exactly regard the police as our friends. To us they were power tripping a-holes who bothered people for no good reason. Millions of people smoke pot. Close to a 100,000,000 have done it and many of those did it regularly or at least occasionally for a time. I suspect most of them probably looked at police and the laws the same way pot smokers did where I am from. These laws against marijuana possession and the enforcement of same do not foster respect for the law or police. They do exactly the opposite, on a grand scale.

[TKDietz]

"But I understand why your motivation." = "But I understand your motivation behind this."

[Conservative til I die]

Nice of you to at least admit you're anti-American.