Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess your actions as a child and teenager defines who you are?
Kind of. Why wouldn't they?
Because a still developing pre-frontal cortex means young people (under 25) fucking suck at making decisions.
Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
61–70 of 149 posts
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#62What about the people who were convicted 15 years and 1 month ago? Or 16 years? Or 20 years? Feels pretty arbitrary.
> Judges in Seattle have decided to quash convictions for marijuana possession for anyone prosecuted in the city between 1996 and 2010. Possession of marijuana became legal in the state of Washington in 2012. Another question is why didn't they quash convictions between 1996 and present, or between 1996 and 2012 when it became legal? Such obvious questions that aren't addressed by the article -- and this is the BBC n…
I’d have to go digging around to do better than my middle-aged memory allows, but at some point shortly before legalization, Seattle PD said pot was they’re lowest priority (translation: don’t force our hand by smoking in front of a grade school, and we’ll leave you alone). Could be that there are no convictions to overturn 2010-2012.
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on what kind of a of crime though right, something as innocuous as using pot or other drugs, sure, it's easy to say that should have a second chance --- but if you spent 10 years in prison for a bank robbery, you're probably are not going to get hired at a bank after the background check comes through, and I think that makes sense. I absolutely believe in second chances, but I understand humans have biases…
>but if you spent 10 years in prison for a bank robbery, you're probably are not going to get hired at a bank after the background check I kind of find this example hilarious. It‘s not like people rob banks out of passion. They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution. Now this person uses her time in jail to get the education necessary to work in a bank and you wouldn‘t hire her (providing…
>They probably were in dire straits at the time and saw no other solution.
So what happens if they get in dire straits while working at the bank with far greater levels of access to all sorts of financial information?
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#64> "For too many who call Seattle home, a misdemeanour marijuana conviction or charge has created barriers to opportunity - good jobs, housing, loans and education," she said. The problem isn't the marijuana convictions, the problem is a society that believes people with criminal records can and should have their entire lives ruined for it. It's a society that doesn't believe in rehabilitation, just "good people" and…
The problem is the low bar to litigation in the US. Employers are afraid hiring a person with a criminal record because if even the slightest problem occurs, they’ll be sued because they “should have known they hired a convict” and a jury will rule against them.
I don’t know how this can be solved
EDIT: It would not cause a lawsuit directly, but it would harm your defense in any lawsuit, which could increase the chances of one being brought. I've had this discussion with several business owners (with me advocating for ignoring convictions), and this is always the reason given
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense. There were also 744,600 inmates in county and city jails. (The BOP data is current as of July 16. From BJS, the…
Your quote says that 16% are in with drugs being their most serious crime. 48% include drugs as a crime, but 2/3 of them have a more serious crime as well. So I'd say the parent is right that 16% are in for drugs and would be set free if drugs were legal. The others in that 48% wouldn't be.
The 48% is about federal prisons, the 16% is about state prisons. Generally the 'bad' crimes we think of (murder and the like) are state offenses, not federal offenses, which is why you see so many more in the state level for something worse than drugs. Drugs is one of the few crimes punished consistently on both a state and federal level. You could go to federal prison for murder, but it generally requires something special about the case for the state to not handle it.
>So I'd say the parent is right that 16% are in for drugs and would be set free if drugs were legal. The others in that 48% wouldn't be.
Both would be set free. 16% from state prisons, 48% from federal prisons. These are two separate prison populations.
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense. There were also 744,600 inmates in county and city jails. (The BOP data is current as of July 16. From BJS, the…
Your quote says that 16% are in with drugs being their most serious crime. 48% include drugs as a crime, but 2/3 of them have a more serious crime as well. So I'd say the parent is right that 16% are in for drugs and would be set free if drugs were legal. The others in that 48% wouldn't be.
[deleted]
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that's false. Every single job I've ever applied to has asked about a criminal record. There is, however, a "ban the box" movement in a plurality of states, banning employers from asking potential employees about a criminal record. With the internet documenting all public information, however, it's normally trivial for an employer to do a little research and find the employee's record.
Huh strange that it went straight to banning checking without an innocent until proven guilty standard. I know I have seen plenty of websites for career related where asking if you were convicted had yes, no, or resident of certain states as an effective N/A along with either telling you to select N/A regardless of personal status or flat out forbidding answering if from such a state.
"Ban the box" usually isn't an outright ban on all criminal background checks. The thing it's fighting against is a checkbox/question on the initial job application, to prevent use of it as a universal "not even going to talk to you" filter.
Typically, an employer can run a criminal background check in a "ban the box" jurisdiction, but only later in the process (for example: after completing interviews and provisionally deciding this is someone you'd like to hire). There may also be other rules in place about how you can use information from the background check, and what you have to do if you decide to revoke the offer of employment based on the result of the check.
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fair chance includes a difficult employment ecosystem for everybody. Even a fair chance, likely means they'll be unemployed.
I don't disagree, but I am skeptical that they received the same chance as someone without a criminal record. Whether intentional or not there is probably some bias in the hiring process when you know they committed a felony or whatever it may be.
Two identical candidates, but one has a criminal past, you're going to take the non-criminal record every time. As unfair as it is in the larger picture, it's hard to justify the decision to hire a criminal when it's your neck on the line
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
No that's false. Every single job I've ever applied to has asked about a criminal record. There is, however, a "ban the box" movement in a plurality of states, banning employers from asking potential employees about a criminal record. With the internet documenting all public information, however, it's normally trivial for an employer to do a little research and find the employee's record.
Huh strange that it went straight to banning checking without an innocent until proven guilty standard. I know I have seen plenty of websites for career related where asking if you were convicted had yes, no, or resident of certain states as an effective N/A along with either telling you to select N/A regardless of personal status or flat out forbidding answering if from such a state.
Key distinction about "ban the box", it doesn't make it illegal to ask employees about a criminal record, or refuse to hire them if they have one.
You just can't ask on the application form. You can ask later on in the process though. The idea is to give people with criminal records at least a fighting chance of getting interviews.
Re: Seattle judges throw out 15 years of marijuana convictions
#70"542 people could have their convictions dismissed by mid-November"
That's not the number I was expecting when I saw the headline. That's 36 people a year, in a city the size of Seattle. I was expecting it to be thousands if not more.
Maybe shows that not very many people are ever convicted for simple possession alone. It's usually an additional charge along with dealing, violence, or both.