Slashdot Mirror


LA County Is Using An Algorithm To Clear 50,000 Pot Convictions Faster (engadget.com)

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.

89 comments

  1. That's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the feds can still fuck you up. You better work on changing the law they are obligated to enforce.

    1. Re:That's nice and all by Nabeel_co · · Score: 0

      Very true ^

    2. Re:That's nice and all by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, 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.

    3. Re:That's nice and all by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Even if they wanted to, the filth from DC simply don't have the scumpower (manpower) to enforce this law on every person smoking a joint.

    4. Re: That's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re: That's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, one of the first few if "few" 13.

      Maybe Bill IS deciding on the basis of individual candidates rather than parties, but prefers people that can make accurate estimates or, frankly, live in objective reality.

    6. Re: That's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, sad, when you let criminals go free, you see crime increase. Look at Seattle and San Francisco and them just letting all the druggies and criminals go, live wherever they want in tents and not prosecuting them when they commit crimes and then calling it a homeless crisis. It's not a homeless crisis, it's a drug and crime crisis. There's a reason people don't want to live in Democrat states and towns, because they turn themselves into garbage where only the fleas want to live and everyone else flees because they want to live and in a nice place and don't want to live with filth. Goodbye LA.

    7. Re: That's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Providing marijuana as a medicine is hardly something to toot your fucking horn over, regardless of party affiliation.

      It's medicine that helps people. You're wrong if it's not legal for medical use.

    8. Re: That's nice and all by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      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 ...

      --
      Nope, no sig
    9. Re: That's nice and all by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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?)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:That's nice and all by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Uh huh...

      From Holder we heard plenty of tough talk also. And from Sessions? Little man would never attack anything his own size...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re: That's nice and all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Montana, a very conservative and Republican State, was one of the first few to legalize medical pot.

      Yeah, get back to me when a conservative state legalizes recreational pot and allows legal possession, even by minority races. I don't give a shit about medicinal pot in terms of politics, because all that means is a bunch of the majority demographic of "I-got-mine, fuck-everyone-else" realized they could benefit, either by using it or making money off of it.

  2. Meanwhile in San Francisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    50.000 bums shit on the street as fast as they can

    1. Re:Meanwhile in San Francisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump voters. Pay them no mind.

    2. Re:Meanwhile in San Francisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hobo abatement is unbelievably hard. If a city adds up the number of bums and budgets enough money to give them all shelter (like Salt Lake City did), what happens is that more bums come to that city. The only way to solve the derelict problem is a comprehensive national effort. This is the only true final solution.

    3. Re:Meanwhile in San Francisco by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    4. Re: Meanwhile in San Francisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solution: dump trucks with front loaders.

      âoeSOYLENT GREEN is, ummm, housing-challenged, job-challenged, pro-marijuana PEOPLE!â

    5. Re:Meanwhile in San Francisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the only true final solution.

      Hi welcome to the SS brother.
       

  3. Non-crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now let's stop prosecuting people for things that are not crimes. War on drugs, war in alcohol, war on terror*, and all other nonsense wars need to end.

    * I'm all for beating down anyone who attacks us but declaring war on terror is like declaring war on preaching. Preachers gonna preach. Terrorists gonna terrorize. You kill one, another pops up somewhere because they think that way is effective for reaching their goals. You can fight specific terror groups but if your goal isn't to kill them all, then you are just feeding their machine and giving them fresh material to talk about when they recruit. Which is what we have been doing. Which is why we have to just stop. We smacked down on Afghanistan for 9/11, we smacked down on Iraq for WMDs (whether we believed that story or not...), we should have declared victory and GTFO immediately. Instead we stayed around and spent trillions on "them" (and a lot of it for the civilian side of our military-industrial complex and financiers). What did we get? Did we win the war on "terror"? Nope. We got almost as many dead American soldiers repairing Afghanistan as dead civilians on 9/11. And California had the three strikes law just to fill prisons so builders and subcontractors can get rich, even though it didn't make sense to have most of those people in prison. We are, as a nation, literally retarded in our governance capacity.

    1. Re:Non-crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, except for the non-existent "war in alcohol". If there was one, it would need to continue. Alcohol kills people and ruins lives, leaving widows and orphans in its wake. Also, it turns normal people into stupid raving assholes. So fuck that shit, it needs to go.

    2. Re:Non-crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the time traveler.

      The temperance movement died nearly 100 years ago. Back in your capsule now, you wouldn't want to catch any of our diseases from the future!

    3. Re:Non-crimes by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Non-crimes by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      What about a war on common sense? One of you slashdotters has that for your signature phrase.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  4. What's the SQL look like? by edi_guy · · Score: 3, 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'

    1. Re:What's the SQL look like? by crgrace · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re: What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good story. Too bad it's on the web and you can't believe a word of it. Where's the reliable source?

    3. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 case was pleased down to posession, that means they haven't been convicted of whatever other crime they were charged with. You can't punish someone for a crime they weren't convicted of since we're innocent until proven guilty.

    4. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful comment. Of course SlashdotCrankyOldWhiteGuys modded you down.
      Yeah, let's punish people for crimes for which they haven't been convicted. Especially if they were hanging out with brown black people at the time. Can the algorithm check for that?

    6. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also over police minority neighborhoods, grossly overcharge to compel plea deals, and the poor get overloaded public defenders while the more affluent get attorneys with the resources, and connections, to get better outcomes.
      They have stolen people's lives and impaired not only the quality of their lives but those who depend upon them.
      Being poor and a minority is a double-whammie, which is why our farce of a prison system is disproportionately stocked with the weakest members of our society.

    7. Re:What's the SQL look like? by crgrace · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:What's the SQL look like? by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      I'd guess it's more likely a nasty excel macro.

    9. Re:What's the SQL look like? by fonos · · Score: 2

      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 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!

      I'm calling bullshit and think you're trying to demonize jailed victims of the war on drugs.

    10. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      I agree. We can't be going around expunging charges that were never laid, court judgements that never happened.

    12. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Firethorn · · 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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    13. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Firethorn · · 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.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double jeopardy.

      You can't treat people differently after a conviction based on what sentence you wanted.

    15. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      “When men oppress their fellow men, the oppressor ever finds in the character of the oppressed, a full justification.”

    16. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing crime rates correspond to is levels of poverty.
      There is no magic crime gene, we are all one race.

    17. Re: What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might look up the word "allocution" in order to understand why you're wrong.

    18. Re:What's the SQL look like? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Shame they never indicted Bobby Tables

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    19. Re:What's the SQL look like? by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      They call me Semi. It's short for ; drop tables

    20. Re:What's the SQL look like? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re: What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Found the racist!

    22. Re: What's the SQL look like? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      But without coerced false confessions, how will we keep our gulag full?

    23. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of satanic sql implementation do you use that uses "to" instead of "=" for an update clause? seeing how you use underscores, i'm guessing oracle but i know that can't be right...

    24. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit. I already modded in this thread, so I'll be an AC and get ignored, but if you're only convicted of pot possession, you're only guilty of pot possession in the eyes of the law even if you murdered 10 children on the way home from your pot dealer.

      You weren't convicted of murdering 10 children and if they could have convicted you for those murders they should have. But you were not found guilty of them.

    25. Re:What's the SQL look like? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1
      I'm glad this got modded up, but I don't think that's what the OP is claiming. Also I don't think the OP is quite accurate. But we should discuss on the merits.

      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 can only "plea down" to a lesser offense included in the original offense. So I couldn't instead plea guilty to failing to maintain my sidewalk since they are unrelated (as defined by statue not by whether they are logically related).

      But it gets tricky if I'm charged with *multiple* crimes. Lets say I get charged with possession of marijuana *and* illegal possession of a firearm. Maybe the evidence is weak on the firearm charge. But I'm definitely guilty of the marijuana charge. In that case, it may be possible to strike a deal where I plea guilty the marijuana possession and the firearms charge gets dismissed.

      Is this situation one where I'm eligible to have the marijuana charge expunged based on the new California policy? I don't know! But it's the type of scenario the OP is trying to explore and which may make this complicated.

    26. Re:What's the SQL look like? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Yes, but isn't that just an extra column in the table?

    27. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a dude who is apparently both innocent and guilty of perverting the course of justice by faking a hate crime. He's guilty and lost his bail money and had to do community service, but is also totally innocent.

    28. Re:What's the SQL look like? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe the AC fully understood the argument, and you're not understanding what he said.

      When you take a plea deal both the prosecutor and the defendant are compromising. The defendant will find themselves found guilty of something which will be on their record. The prosecutor is giving up the chance to have the defendant found guilty of other crimes. In the case you're trying to use as an example, "something" is "possession of marijuana" and "other crimes" is "illegal possession of a firearm".

      What you and the person the AC was responding to are suggesting is that it's reasonable to assume the defendant is guilty of whatever it was that was dropped as part of the plea bargain. It isn't. The defendant hasn't been found guilty of those crimes, was never tried for them, and the prosecutor deemed it in the public interest to drop those charges.

      The defendant isn't considered guilty of illegal possession of a firearm if they took the plea deal. It doesn't get added to their record. That's the entire point of the plea deal, that it was dropped so that the defendant would agree to plea guilty to the lesser charge.

      Now, you might be able to make a case that it isn't in the public interest to handle people who took plea deals like this... but that doesn't change the fact it'd be unconstitutional to treat someone as guilty of a crime they were never convicted of. The bigger issue is that plea deals exist, perhaps they shouldn't.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    29. Re:What's the SQL look like? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      heh, my thoughts exactly

    30. Re:What's the SQL look like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no law you have to expunge anything.

      From TFS:

      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.

      So, it does seem like there is a law.

  5. Was that some good shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah man

  6. "Mistakes of the past?" by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 2

    "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.

    1. Re:"Mistakes of the past?" by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:"Mistakes of the past?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It couldn't be that the person responsible for the prosecutors who put these people in jail is running for president, nah, impossible.

    3. Re:"Mistakes of the past?" by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I agree but also remember that the expungement now makes it way easier for them to do things like get a job. And having a job sure does help people move forward with their lives!

    4. Re:"Mistakes of the past?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " 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?
      I bet you are the same kind of person who tries to relate pot laws to slavery and other nonsense.

    5. Re:"Mistakes of the past?" by redlemming · · 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!). In response, James Madison made the Bill of Rights open-ended - and hence not finite, thus nullifying the objection.

      The fact that multiple states have decided to allow pot is more then sufficient to establish that a right retained by the people is in play. Even one person making a reasonable argument that such a right exists should be sufficient. The Bill of Rights, after all, was a document of the Enlightenment - the Age of Reason - the age when logic and reason and rational thinking became superior to established authority or mere numbers.

      Such an argument was made by individuals on many occasions since the 1930's when pot was originally made illegal - which should have led to this situation being corrected long ago. Having the population of multiple states vote overwhelmingly in favor of legalization goes far beyond the minimum standard.

      In short, federal and state governments in the USA - by enforcing illegal laws prohibiting the production, sale, and use of pot - violated the Bill of Rights. The government could have put into place some reasonable health and safety requirements regarding pot, but it never had the legal authority to make it entirely illegal.

      This situation SHOULD have been corrected a long time ago. Perhaps a legal profession that highly valued legal ethics would have done better, but the USA clearly didn't have one in 1932 when the ABA reviewed the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act - and there are still major problems in legal ethics today (see Lindsey and Teles, The Captured Economy, for a number of references related to this point).

      Every lawyer and every law enforcement officer should be thinking about whether or not any given law (or precedent) is legal before they choose to enforce it (or use it). It's an individual responsibility. This is called having integrity. It is how the system is supposed to work. Those who become lawyers, or accept certain government positions have sworn oaths to recognize these truths and act accordingly. Those who are unwilling to abide by this requirement are welcome to look for work in another country.

      If you like, you can think of this as the US equivalent of the Nuremberg Precedent: it comes into US law under the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments as one of the most important rights retained by the people.

      Any law or precedent to the contrary is illegal: rights retained by the people are retained by the people by definition and can not be taken away by ANY entity of government (up to and including the Supreme Court) without introducing a contradiction in the law - and contradictions in the law will always involve unethical practice of law at some level, sooner or later - and hence violate the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law (an universal and inalienable right).

      Failure to comply with this rule is a violation of the right to ethical practice of law, the oaths various people swear to uphold the law, and the Constitutional requirement of "good behavior" for federal judges. It's impossible to uphold the law by introducing a contradiction into it, and unethical practice of law is certainly not "good behavior".

      So it is a good thing that these illegal laws are finally (after so many decades) starting to be corrected. It remains to be seen whether ALL the harm done by illegal government action (and unethical practice of law) in this area will eventually be corrected in some reasonable fashion.

    6. Re: "Mistakes of the past?" by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re: "Mistakes of the past?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like it or not, the person responsible for the original crime is the one who made the first mistake (excluding for the sake of discussion those guilty due to planted evidence or various types of stupidity - e.g. sub-par jurists). Assuming the person did something illegal, that is the mistake the DA was talking about.

      This should also be reasonably obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it and isn't making kneejerk reactionary statements.

  7. sure you can by Firethorn · · 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.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  8. I'll give them this one for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here LA County, and any other counties that want to save some money on expensive contractors to develop your algorithms:

    DELETE FROM convictions WHERE offence like %possesion for personal use%;

    1. Re: I'll give them this one for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot believe they didn't call that statement AI.

  9. Where is the GitHub Project? by Carcass666 · · Score: 1

    Are they accepting pull requests? I have some suggestions.

    1. Re:Where is the GitHub Project? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Pull requests are only applicable to sex crimes, and you have to be very quick to have them accepted.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:Where is the GitHub Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pull requests are only applicable to sex crimes, and you have to be very quick to have them accepted.

      Per GP's girlfriend, he will be able to do this within 5 seconds.

  10. Their still blaming the pot smoker. by ITRambo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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." Huh? 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?

    1. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure. Tell that to Claudette Colvin about the time when she was handcuffed and arrested as a 15 year old girl for riding a bus in the front.

      There are plenty of cases when the law was a mistake and the people who broke it were not mistaken at all, and most of them are also recognized by legal scholars and supreme judges as such.

    4. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can thank women for prohibition. The only amendment to the constitution that has been repealed. You can also thank women for income tax because that was the only way women could get the government to enact such a law as prohibition because the government was so reliant on the taxes of alcohol. You can also thank women for the great depression because the day that prohibition was enacted, more than 15,000 people became unemployed and the ones that didn't become unemployed got shafted with the burden of income tax that they had never had to pay before, shafting the working man and most businesses. Ultimately leading to the great depression for nearly 10 years... Thanks Women.

      AND you can bet your life that there were people arrested before prohibition came into effect for the manufacture of booze before the 18 months it took to be in effect.

      I wish stupid people would learn history. You can learn a lot from this https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/ Also you can see that the EXACT same tactic used to push through prohibition are being used today to push though gun control. Especially the staged shooting events.

    5. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, you gone fullretard there boy.

    6. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I could have found your post vaguely interesting (albeit probably wishful thinking) if it were not for the unpalatable finale: "Especially the staged shooting events."

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    7. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Their still blaming the pot smoker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incel detected.

  11. Clear the unjust by DarkFlite · · Score: 2

    So.... All of them were bogus, right?

    --
    -In space, it is very hard to rig lights.
  12. What a twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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...

    The only mistakes were made on the part of government and their enforcers, grossly mis-classifying a plant with significant medical potential and destroying people's lives as a consequence. Those who smoke it in large quantity may not be our best and brightest, but they're far less dangerous to everyone around them than those who overindulge in alcohol.

    If they sincerely wanted to make things right, not only would they expunge records and compensate the wrongfully abused, they would punish and incarcerate those who insisted on following the status quo instead of standing up to the idiots who mis-classified the plant in the first place and those who continued to support them over the decades.

  13. rm -rf / by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boom.
    Done.

  14. The "algorithem" they should be using by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is exposing the racist and anti-competitive reasons for banning hemp in the first place.

  15. Hard problem. Letâ(TM)s get started. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    if Prisoner race is Caucasian then continue consideration, else return false.

    1. Re:Hard problem. Letâ(TM)s get started. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add "Jussie Smollett".

  16. Shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plead guilty to illegal posession of Adderall. Get re-elected.

  17. Clear convictions? by PPH · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  18. Temperance died for four and a half years by tepples · · Score: 1

    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).

  19. Just Say NO To Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    No. Fuck no. It's a filtering system to prevent stupid fucking potheads from succeeding in life, as it should be. Drug use and users are a bigger problem than immigration.