Grasscity - Dab Rig Sale - 50% Discount

Panel approves lower penalties for marijuana

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by oltex, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. Panel approves lower penalties for marijuana
    BaltimoreSun / Michael Dresser / 3,21,2012


    The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation Wednesday that would cut the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana in a way that curtails the right to an initial jury trial on the charges.

    By a 16-4 vote, members said, the panel gave its OK to Del. Luke Clippingers's bill setting the maximum penalty for possesssion of 7 grams or less of marijuana at 90 days and a $500 fine. Previously those convicted of the charge could have been given up to a year in jail.

    With a potential penalty of more than 90 days, defendants were entitled to a jury trial in Circuit Court -- an option may have taken. Under the legislation, defendants would initially be tried before a District Court judge but would retain the right to appeal to the Circuit Court.

    Clippinger, a Baltimore Democrat, said the bill had the backing of state's attorneys. He said prosecutors believed that by reducing the number of jury trials, the bill would let them concentrate their efforts on more serious crimes.

    The bill now goes to the House floor, where it could be debated as early as Thursday. Action on a similar bill is pending in the Senate.


    90 days in jail ruins your life the same way a year does,this is just a money saver bill for the judicial system.:(
     
  2. It's a step in the right direction at least.
     
  3. True that Gavin but it also removes the chance of a jury nullification for the people charged under the new law.
     
  4. What a fucking joke..
     
  5. I guess this could be called progressive but it also seems to be a step backwards at the same time...
    :confused:
     

  6. Oh, didn't think about it that way. Not sure how I feel about this change. =/
     

  7. True. But given the chance, would I really pass up a judge for a jury "of my peers"? I mean, the prosecutor is trying to pick people that hate weed. Granted the defense is looking for people who look upon it favorably, but think about it this way:

    There are far more people who are staunchly against weed that there are people who are avid supporters of it. People on the jury don't want to be there, so they can be swayed to make a quick judgement instead of really looking at the facts. I mean all you need is 1 or 2 anti-drug fanatics to sway your average apathetic jury. Combine that with the much high incarceration rate of minorities for marijuana offenses, and you could have dismal results. Think about the whole Florida shooting of that kid in a hoodie. You can't deny that seeing lack/hispanic males on trial for drugs doesn't bring up more negative connotations than white males.

    I'd rather take my chances with a Judge who is probably pissed off that he has to waste his time with a marijuana hearing instead of more pressing matters.

    People as individuals are rational and competent.
    When you have a group of people, on the other hand, a lot of dynamics come into play and they make stupid decisions.
     
  8. Two years ago I would have agreed with you but due to the recent increase in support of marijuana,especially the support for medical marijuana,I would rather try for jury nullification.

    The other factor is that jury trials are much more expensive than a single judge,,we need too cost them as much as we can,,make them borrow away their power.:smoke:
     
  9. ^^This...that's all this is about, taking away the possibility of jury nullification, and taking away the right to trial, period. :mad:
     

Share This Page