The title says it all. Say hypothetically that marijuana was legalized. Should the people who went to jail for it be released or should they still do their time? This isn't only about marijuana though - it's for all laws.

 

 

 

I think they should be exempt because the changing of the law proves that it was an invalid one in the first place. You shouldn't do time for something which is currently not against the law.

Nah keep them in there. When they commited the crime it was against the law.

well, although it wouldn't be legal anymore, at the time, they broke the law, and they did something wrong, or something that was wrong at the time.

 

they should just chop the rest of the sentence in half.

I think it mostly depends on why the law was changed. Also, I wouldn't say an automatic exemption, but the possibility of exemption from the rest of their sentance/charge for sure.

In my opinion, no. They broke the law when it was a law. There might be some cases that I may make an exception, but for the most part I'd say they should stay right where they are.

some but not all prisoners should be released and a reiew of most sentences would be in order

 

 

 

specifically for marijuana, people in jail simply for possession should be released, people in jail for dealing and or growing should have to serve some of the remaining sentence.

 

 

 

edit--thats just referencing directly related, someone driving under the influence of marijuana would still be under full term

It depends on why the law changed. Anyway, I think the prisoners would be allowed to have their sentenced reviewed, and if the law was changed because it was unjustified or whatnot, their remaining sentence would be annulled. I'm no expert on law, but I think this is how it would work.

I forget to address this in the initial post

 

 

 

The reason the law was changed would be of signifigant importance. If the law was changed due to a shift in public opinion(like prohibition) then a review is all thats in order; if the law was thrown out as unconstitutional then most if not all of the prisoners should be released.

I don't see why.

 

 

 

They did get caught when the law exsisted, and therefore got their deserved punishment. They should remain in jail for their time because they did break the law.

Depends on the change of the law.

 

 

 

It is changes so that it carries a lighter punishment, readjust their sentence accordingly, if it changes that it doesn't carry a jail sentence any more then release them and place the new punishment on them.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's how a lot of countries operate on laws anyway, if it changes, change all sentences to fit the new punishments.

Not automatically released, just reviewed.

they broke the law when it was illigal so they shouldn't be released

 

 

 

 

 

but i hope they don't make the crud legal o.O

I heard of cases where they broke the law, the law got changed, then they got caught, tried, and convicted.

Lets do this.

 

 

 

It was a crime for blacks to use white facilities back in the day. Say, a black man, in protest, used a white drinking fountain and was arrested for a month. Then a Civil Rights Act passed abolishing separation of public facilities two days later. Should the black man still be in jail for the rest of the month? I think not.

 

 

 

Just because something is a law doesn't make it right. As Zierro said, if a law is abolished then it proved to be useless during its time so why should we let it's prisoners still stay in jail?

 

 

 

Laws should be universally morally good.

Just decrease their sentence?

 

 

 

But if it's for something small like marijuana, I can see them becoming free.

 

Just because something is a law doesn't make it right. As Zierro said, if a law is abolished then it proved to be useless during its time so why should we let it's prisoners still stay in jail?

 

 

 

Laws should be universally morally good.

 

 

 

I believe that's how it actually works, if a law gets abolished or changed, then the inmates would be freed or re-sentenced.

 

 

 

Edit: Looks like I was right

 

 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9639C8B63

 

 

When Gov. George E. Pataki signed a law a year ago reducing what he called ''unduly long sentences'' for drug crimes, he predicted that hundreds of nonviolent drug offenders would be released from prison.

 

 

 

But so far, only 142 prisoners -- about 30 percent of those originally eligible for new sentences under the revised law -- have been freed, according to a report released yesterday by the Legal Aid Society.

Decrease the sentence or let them free. It'd help with the overcrowded jails and prisons.

I would say if the laws change people could be let go. Though maybe a mental stability test before they are

I would say if the laws change people could be let go. Though maybe a mental stability test before they are

 

 

 

Yeah cause all criminals are mentally unstable :roll:

They are in prison because they broke the law. If the law is changed after they get in prison, tough luck. They knew at the time what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyways. They should not be allowed to walk free just because the law changed.

I would say if the laws change people could be let go. Though maybe a mental stability test before they are

 

 

 

Yeah cause all criminals are mentally unstable :roll:

 

Would you rather have the mentally unstable sent back to the streets? He never implied that they all were.

They are in prison because they broke the law. If the law is changed after they get in prison, tough luck. They knew at the time what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyways. They should not be allowed to walk free just because the law changed.

 

 

 

They were only a criminal while the law was intact. If the law is invalid then their crime is (I'm not saying was) invalid as well. And you are using the word "wrong" as if all laws go by a moral code. They should, but this is not always the case. Like Nick said, it was illegal for blacks to use white things but just because it was a law this does not mean their actions were wrong in a moral sense.

 

 

 

Not only that, but they are no longer a threat to society and have no lesson to be learned anymore. If you keep them in prison longer then you're just keeping them in a bad environment which can cause their morality to become tainted from the real criminals around them. Ever hear of cases where innocent people go to jail and it ironically makes them worse off than when they arrived there?

 

 

 

Something is not wrong just because it is the law. That is backwards.

I would say if the laws change people could be let go. Though maybe a mental stability test before they are

 

 

 

Yeah cause all criminals are mentally unstable :roll:

 

Would you rather have the mentally unstable sent back to the streets? He never implied that they all were.

 

 

 

If a law is abolished then obviously it is going to be a fairly stupid one, and they wouldn't keep mentally unstable people locked up, at most they would send them to a mental institute, most likely get them help though.

 

 

 

It's not a crime to be mentally unstable

I would say if the laws change people could be let go. Though maybe a mental stability test before they are

 

 

 

Yeah cause all criminals are mentally unstable :roll:

 

Would you rather have the mentally unstable sent back to the streets? He never implied that they all were.

 

 

 

If a law is abolished then obviously it is going to be a fairly stupid one, and they wouldn't keep mentally unstable people locked up, at most they would send them to a mental institute, most likely get them help though.

 

 

 

It's not a crime to be mentally unstable

 

A mental stability test doesn't only test mental stability. It tests if they're dangerous to themselves or others.

No because they're likely to do the crime again, and that's when the real problems start.