Campaign fact check: Here’s how Kamala Harris really prosecuted marijuana cases
www.mercurynews.com
Despite the substantial number of convictions, many of the people who were arrested for marijuana during Harris’ tenure were never locked up or never even charged with a crime.
  • Timii@biglemmowski.winEnglish
    1143·
    2 months ago

    “Kamala Harris and I disagreed on a lot of criminal justice issues, but I have to admit, she was probably the most progressive prosecutor in the state at the time when it came to marijuana,”

    ;tldr is she did her job well as PA and litigated marijuana charges without seeking jail time solely for that crime. Supported medical marijuana at the time, and after it is all said in done also supports legalization nowadays.

    👍

  • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
    581·
    2 months ago

    Her prosecutors appear to have convicted people on marijuana charges at a higher rate than under her predecessor, based on data about marijuana arrests in the city.
    But former lawyers in Harris’ office and defense attorneys who worked on drug cases say most defendants arrested for low-level pot possession were never locked up. And only a few dozen people were sent to state prison for marijuana convictions under Harris’ tenure.

    While there were more marijuana convictions during Hallinan’s tenure, there were also a lot more arrests. San Francisco arrest data compiled by the Attorney General’s office suggests that 24 percent of marijuana arrests led to marijuana convictions under Harris, compared with 18 percent of arrests under Hallinan.
    Conviction rate aside, only 45 people were sentenced to state prison for marijuana convictions during Harris’ seven years in office, compared with 135 people during Hallinan’s eight years

    “Our policy was that no one with a marijuana conviction for mere possession could do any (jail time) at all,” said Paul Henderson, who led narcotics prosecutions for several years under Harris.

    In other words, she prosecuted people for weed but sought lesser sentences. Laws after she left office lead to distorted interpretations of what happened after she left.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3610·
    2 months ago

    Honest, I hope she prosecuted them all properly. It’s not a DA’s job to just let people off the hook when they legit break the law. If you want to change the law, you should probably become a Senator or something.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      34·
      2 months ago

      Regardless, it seems like she went fairly light on them for a prosecutor in the 00s. Since then we’ve had more progressive prosecutors but that wasn’t really a thing at that time.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      241·
      2 months ago

      I get what you’re saying, and I’ll be voting for the democrat nominee regardless. However, a large part of a DA’s responsibility is to exercise discretion in which cases to prosecute and which sentences to recommend. From the article:

      Harris had wide latitude to decide which marijuana cases to prosecute and what sentences to seek

      • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
        115·
        2 months ago

        Certainly, and I would hope she was reasonable about it, particularly when it came to sentencing for people like first time offenders. Which cases to prosecute should just be the ones with strong evidence of guilt though. Not something like “I think marijuana laws are wrong so I won’t prosecute those.”

        • anonymouse2@sh.itjust.works
          10·
          2 months ago

          There are still laws against sodomy in many states. Those laws are backwards and antiquated, but they are still laws. I would expect every DA in the country to throw out a sodomy case involving two or more consenting adults not only because it’s a stupid law but because spending tax-payer money on such a case does nothing to protect the public good.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
            23·
            2 months ago

            Generally I agree, though it depends a little bit. If the local populace strongly feels sodomy should be illegal, then they have the right to have that law. The DA should then enforce it.

            Fair point though.

            • anonymouse2@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              2 months ago

              I couldn’t disagree more with that. That’s the kind of thinking that results in the perpetuation of all kinds of racist and bigoted laws that strip people of their personal freedoms.

              • Carrolade@lemmy.worldEnglish
                31·
                2 months ago

                I agree, it is. I believe that our rights come from the people, though, and it is ultimately people that are responsible for choosing and upholding them. This is why we can amend our constitution.

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    14·
    2 months ago

    Not about the substance of the article, but something that the right can’t comprehend is that people can grow and change their opinions. And can advocate for different policies than they supported or acted on in the past. It’s okay to have been wrong. It’s okay to have made mistakes. It’s okay to grow and change. Maybe if they realized that they would be happier people.

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      1·
      2 months ago

      They seem to think that everyone changes their opinion the way J.D. Vance does: by just becoming a serial liar.