> are currently in jail were doing something that was illegal at the moment.
"Sorry, we weren't enlightened 20 years ago, so you're going to stay in jail" is an embarrassing cop-out. This is a systematic flaw in the legal system, and is unjustified. If it took decades to figure out that marijuana was wrongfully illegal, then those persecuted under such a law should be removed from incarceration at once. How can it be any other way? This is common sense.
Keeping people in prison for actions now known to be harmless is a terrible and embarrassing flaw in moral structure.
Maybe if a law is found outright unconstitutional, sure, exonerate those who are serving time for it.
This isn't the case with marijuana. No conclusion has been reached that it is "wrongfully illegal," it's just not something we want to continue prosecuting for.
This does not excuse the actions of those currently in prison for drug offenses-- we aren't punishing them because marijuana is/was illegal, we're punishing them because they decided they didn't have to abide by the law at the time it existed.
> No conclusion has been reached that it is "wrongfully illegal,"
The same could be said about being black, or gay, or whatever.
I mean, if alcohol is a legal and regulated drug there is absolutely no reason marijuana shouldn't be too. This should be obvious to anyone who's drank till they passed out and also smoked weed till they passed out.
> we're punishing them because they decided they didn't have to abide by the law at the time it existed.
Should we punish lawmakers for implementing oppressive laws which prevented good people from pursuing viable businesses? Why can't there be accountability in the reverse direction?
We can't criminalise making mistakes, even if it is lawmakers who are making them.
I see wisdom in a general amnesty for light drug crimes if it is decriminalised; but it isn't like there is a double standard being applied here. This is how a fair legal system works - the consequences of your actions are clearly known when you act, and you face the consequences of your actions once the legal system catches up to you.
you are at once arguing "we can't criminalise making mistakes" and "you face the consequences of your actions when the legal system catches up to you"
The first you apply to the elites, and the second to everyone else.
Only in the case of the elites are we talking about serious, intentional, and known in advance to be illegitimate, irreparable harm to millions of people's lives.
But its just a "mistake", but you demand those who perpetuated victimless crimes continue to suffer.
There's a difference between a mistake and violating the law. If the lawmakers have knowingly voted for an unconstitutional law, they should be persecuted, because they violated the law. If, on the other hand, they had merely voted for an unwise law, it's a mistake that shouldn't be persecuted.
Also, I find it curious that you single out lawmakers and forget the public that voted them in on anti-drug platform. Should we persecute all Nixon voters as well, for example?
Actually, you'd be keeping people in prison who you know have a disregard for the law, and decide for themselves what they think is okay. They are criminals, they broke the law at the time, and as such, are people that deserve to spend time in prison.
Of course, that's a very broad way to think of it. I'm sure for this particular topic there are lots of cases of outright discrimination which means people are serving sentences for marijuana-related laws that just aren't helpful to society at all (probably detrimental).
So, you may be right regarding this particular law, however, I think it is a very dangerous precedent to simply pardon anyone who committed a crime, for which that act is now legal.
If someone believes something that's currently illegal should be made legal, there are non-anarchist ways to deal with it than simply disregarding authority and committing a crime.
You can apply the same logic toward civil disobedience and people ignoring unjust laws during the civil right movement era or ghandi's era.
I think many would agree that kind of 'law breaking' should be cleared, and they apply the same logic to non-violent drug offences.
There is also a good segment who were forced into plea bargains due to the structure of the US legal system, the pattern of racism in arrests, convictions, evidence planting and so on. We know a chunk of those people are in jail for bullshit reasons, and thus the push towards releasing these people and removing the records.
What is this dangerous precedent? I struggle to think of a reasonable hypothetical scenario where it is just to continue punishing someone for something which isn't a crime. On the other hand, there are actual thousands of people locked in confined spaces for acts that society no longer believes merits locking people in confined spaces.
But, you say, they are the kind of people who disregard the law so we should keep them there anyway. They are in prison because of a specific crime, not their general audacity to defy the state. Imprisoning someone because of an error and continuing to do so after it has been realized serves no societal purpose and is a cruel and excessive use of force.
"Sorry, we weren't enlightened 20 years ago, so you're going to stay in jail" is an embarrassing cop-out. This is a systematic flaw in the legal system, and is unjustified. If it took decades to figure out that marijuana was wrongfully illegal, then those persecuted under such a law should be removed from incarceration at once. How can it be any other way? This is common sense.
Keeping people in prison for actions now known to be harmless is a terrible and embarrassing flaw in moral structure.