Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the tech-tools dept.

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.

5 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.
  2. 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.

  3. 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?