Prison and Jail are two different things.

True, but he said it would empty half the prisons and that's not true. That said, I would bet the average stay in a county jail for Marijuana possession is less than 24 hours.

True, but he said it would empty half the prisons and that's not true. That said, I would bet the average stay in a county jail for Marijuana possession is less than 24 hours.

 

Ok but add up that 24 hours over the 5-10 daily arrest and your talking some decent money and time spent on it.

Ok but add up that 24 hours over the 5-10 daily arrest and your talking some decent money and time spent on it.

 

Anything adds up if you extrapolate it out like that, marijuana arrest are a very very small portion of daily arrest in most jurisdictions. Probably 20 times or more people are arrested daily for failure to appear in court than for marijuana.

All it takes is three penny-ante pot possession busts and you've got 5-10 in some states. This is ridiculous. We look for too many reasons to get people caught up in the justice system, for no other reason than lecherous companies such as CCA and their ilk who donate obscene amounts of cash to campaign coffers to ensure they have a steady supply of cheap labor and reasons to build new jails/prisons.

All it takes is three penny-ante pot possession busts and you've got 5-10 in some states. This is ridiculous. We look for too many reasons to get people caught up in the justice system, for no other reason than lecherous companies such as CCA and their ilk who donate obscene amounts of cash to campaign coffers to ensure they have a steady supply of cheap labor and reasons to build new jails/prisons.

 

Well with 1 tenth of 1 percent of the prison population in for Marijuana it doesn't look like it is that big of a deal.

 

If CAA or others of their ilk were dependent on marijuana arrest and convictions they would have already gone bankrupt.

Less that 1 percent (actually closer to 1 tenth of a percent) of people in Prison are in Prison for Marijuana possession ...

 

I clicked on the link and it took me to another link to a book. Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know is the book. The words in the link are right in the book, but they don't say how they came up with their numbers or provide a citation for them (I would have liked to look).

 

Now, I Googled this stuff to try to find any confirmation and I found a few sources that cast doubt on the "less than 1%" thing.

 

First, the Federal Bureau of Prisons website shows that 50% of their inmates are in the clink for drugs.

 

Second, on page seven of the United States Sentencing Commission's report on sentencing in 2013 showed that marijuana cases were their top drug offense, amounting to 27% of them.

 

After cocaine cases (powder and crack cases combined), marijuana offenses were the next most common, representing 27.6 percent of all drug crimes. In fact, marijuana cases were more prevalent than either crack cocaine or powder cocaine cases individually.

 

Of course, we are talking about federal crimes here and the USSC doesn't show incarceration rates that I can find (though they say most federal crimes lead to incarceration), but I have a hard time believing the "less than 1%" thing with these numbers, especially considering how much easier it would be to make a case at the state level, with three-strikes laws, mandatory minimums, etc.

 

Edit: I (finally) found some data on all state inmates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (page 15) that shows 16% of the prisoner population are in for drugs, but doesn't break it down any further than that.

Edited July 13, 201511 yr by Habib

I clicked on the link and it took me to another link to a book. Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know is the book. The words in the link are right in the book, but they don't say how they came up with their numbers or provide a citation for them (I would have liked to look).

 

Now, I Googled this stuff to try to find any confirmation and I found a few sources that cast doubt on the "less than 1%" thing.

 

First, the Federal Bureau of Prisons website shows that 50% of their inmates are in the clink for drugs.

 

Second, on page seven of the United States Sentencing Commission's report on sentencing in 2013 showed that marijuana cases were their top drug offense, amounting to 27% of them.

 

 

 

Of course, we are talking about federal crimes here and the USSC doesn't show incarceration rates that I can find (though they say most federal crimes lead to incarceration), but I have a hard time believing the "less than 1%" thing with these numbers, especially considering how much easier it would be to make a case at the state level, with three-strikes laws, mandatory minimums, etc.

 

I was talking in for possession not dealing. I would say it is very very rare for some one to go to prison for marijuana possession only. Seeing how possession is only a misdemeanor unless it is a larger amount that would tend to lead to trafficking charges, I'd say 3 strikes laws don't come into play either for just simple misdemeanor possession since most states 3 strikes laws are predicated on 3 felony offenses not misdemeanors.

 

As far as the 1% thing that came from an article in Rolling Stone, they give some links in the link that I originally posted.

Edited July 13, 201511 yr by Jumper_Dad

So he didn't commit a crime and they took his money.

 

I assume they took it because they figured it was from illegal activity (selling pot).

I assume they took it because they figured it was from illegal activity (selling pot).

 

I'm of the belief if they can't prove a crime they shouldn't be able to seize property. Innocent until proven guilty should apply to my property as well.

I'm of the belief if they can't prove a crime they shouldn't be able to seize property. Innocent until proven guilty should apply to my property as well.

 

Agree 100%

I'm of the belief if they can't prove a crime they shouldn't be able to seize property. Innocent until proven guilty should apply to my property as well.

I'm pretty sure that if it is seized and no conviction comes from it they do get it back.

 

Most cases where money is seized it is in concert with a drug seizure or charges, This case in particular seems very very fishy.

I'm pretty sure that if it is seized and no conviction comes from it they do get it back.

 

From what I understand, under civil asset forfeiture laws the property is considered "guilty until proven innocent," i.e. you actually have to go to court to prove the property is "clean" and that's not necessarily an easy burden. Horror stories like this one abound.

 

Before leaving office Holder made a few weak changes to this policy, but it would only govern assets seized by local authorities under federal. As I understand it, states have developed their own policies on asset forfeiture.

From what I understand, under civil asset forfeiture laws the property is considered "guilty until proven innocent," i.e. you actually have to go to court to prove the property is "clean" and that's not necessarily an easy burden. Horror stories like this one abound.

 

Before leaving office Holder made a few weak changes to this policy, but it would only govern assets seized by local authorities under federal. As I understand it, states have developed their own policies on asset forfeiture.

Federal may be that way I was talking about local...I know at least around here that is how it is.

Man whose $11K was seized at CVG gets it back -- with interest -- after settlement - Story

 

More than two years after agents at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport seized $11,000 from Charles Clarke, he got his money back -- and then some.

 

Clarke agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Government Tuesday that would award him his $11,000 plus interest. Clarke was not awarded any compensatory damages.

 

 

In Feb. 2014, Clarke was traveling to Florida from CVG when police stopped him, according to the lawsuit. He was 24 at the time.

 

A ticket agent complained that Clarke smelled like marijuana at the time. During his interview, agents took $11,000 in cash that Clarke said he was going to use to pay for college. Investigators claimed the money came from drug dealing or would be used to purchase drugs.

 

The ensuing legal battle over civil asset forfeiture made national headlines and illuminated an issue that nets local and federal agencies millions of dollars every year.

 

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice in which police are able to seize cash and property from people who are suspect of a crime -- even if that person isn’t convicted or sometimes even charged.

 

It took Clarke five years to save up the money, according to representatives with the Institute for Justice (IJ), who represented him pro bono. The nonprofit civil liberties group said he is one of thousands of people who have had their money seized through civil forfeiture.

 

The officer said Clarke became agitated when they took his cash and that he tried to keep officers from the money. At the time, Clarke was charged with assault on a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

 

No drugs or anything illegal was found during the incident, police said.

Should have gotten more but this is a case of the legal system covering their own.