Drug Prohibition
There are no panaceas for the world's drug problems, but legalizing drugs, un-clog the court system, and free prison space for real criminals. comes as close as any single policy could. Removing legal penalties from the production, sale and use of "controlled substances" would not create a "heaven on Earth," but it would alleviate many of the nation's social and political problems. Legalization would reduce drug-related crime, save the U.S. billions of dollars
In 1984, a kilogram of cocaine worth $4000 in Columbia sold at wholesale for $30,000, and at retail in the U.S. for some $300,000. At the time, a Drug
Enforcement Administration spokesman noted that the wholesale price doubled in six months "due to crackdowns on producers and smugglers in Columbia and the
U.S." The consequence of this drastic factory-to-retail escalation is a rise in crime. Addicts must pay hundreds of times the costs of their habit, and often turn to crime to finance their addiction. Also, those who deal in the selling of the drugs become prime targets for assault for carrying extremely valuable goods. The streets become battlegrounds for competing dealers because a particular block or corner can rake in thousands of extra dollars a day. Should drugs be legalized, the price would collapse, and so would the drug-related motivations to commit crime. A pack of cocaine becomes no more dangerous to carry than a pack of cigarettes. The streets would be safer to walk, as criminal drug dealers are pushed from the market.
Legalization would also deflate prison overcrowding. Out of 31,346 sentenced prisoners in federal institutions, drug law violators were the largest single category, 9487. By legalizing drugs, there would be no more drug offenders to lock up. Since many drug users would no longer be committing violent or property crimes to pay for their habits, there would be fewer real criminals. This decrease in inmates would bring the overflowing federal prison system down to its rated capacity. The excessive efforts now used against drug activity and drug related-crimes by police would then be put to use more effectively for catching rapists, murderers, and the remaining criminals who commit crimes against people and property.
It takes a month to bring a person accused of a crime to trial. It's even slower for civil proceedings. There simply isn't enough judges to handle the ever-increasing caseload. By legalizing drugs, thousands of cases would be wiped off the courts permitting the rest to move faster. Prosecutors would have more time to handle cases, and judges could make more considered decisions.
Better decisions would lead to fewer grounds for appeals, reducing the huge
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
...arately from the length of the delay, the prejudice towards the accused can be inferred from the length of the delay as established in R. v. Morin. Examining the Morin guidelines made the decision and since the guidelines set out an 8 to 10 month institutional delay and in this case the court deemed that the Crown was responsible for 23 months of delay. The court failed to justify the reason for the 23-month delay and since it exceeded the Morin guidelines the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and the accused’s right under Section 11(b) of the Charter has been violated and the trial within a reasonable time was infringed and negated.
... The offenders’ rights to a fair trial were upheld under s 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1980) which can be seen in that she had adequate time to prepare her defence (1 year, 8 months and 27 days) and that she had the right to presumed innocent until proven guilty. The offender also had adequate legal representation and didn’t require any legal aid.
I have learned that some cases go to trial pretty fast and then others take longer. I found that people can wait up to 9 years for trial and they still get convicted as guilty, but there are some that get their cases dismissed. Which is far because it did violated the right to speedy trial so which mean the case gets dismissed.
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals set a limit that each criminal defense attorney can take 150 felony cases per year, but “caseloads of 500, 600, 800, or more are common” (“Five Problems”). With that, criminal defense attorneys are forced to triage or reject cases, leaving potential clients to go to court without representation. If the defendant does have a public attorney, their defense is unprepared and vulnerable to make mistakes when working out a reasonable sentence. In one of his cases, Jones and his client accepted a deal with the prosecution for a three year sentence for stealing locks. Upon further investigation, the prosecution discovered that they made a mistake in calculating the minimum sentence – Jones’s client should have only served “366 days,” but it was already too late (Eckholm).
Although the questioning didn’t get them the evidence they wanted, probable cause, it didn’t take long until they had gathered enough, indicating his guilt, and were able to obtain a warrant.
One could wonder why plea bargains are even made. One reason would be that criminal courts are becoming clogged and overcrowded. Going through the proper procedure and processes that we are granted takes time. Trials can take anywhere from days to...
3Walker, Hugh: Market Power and Price levels in the Ethical Drug Industry; Indiana University Press, 1971, P 25.
Prohibition was a period in which the sale, manufacture, or transport of alcoholic beverages became illegal. It started January 16, 1919 and continued to December 5, 193. Although it was formed to stop drinking completely, it did not even come close. It created a large number of bootleggers who were able to supply the public with illegal alcohol. Many of these bootleggers became very rich and influential through selling alcohol and using other methods. They started the practices of organized crime that are still used today. Thus, Prohibition led to the rapid growth of organized crime.
Bounded by the end of the nineteenth century and the American entry into World War I, the Progressive Era brought dramatic changes to the nation’s economic, political, and social sectors. Progressives included both men and women from various ethnic groups, classes, and occupations who challenged traditional attitudes about the American way of life. The roots of Progressivism date back to the mid to late 1800s, when angry farmers and small business owners formed the Grange and later the Populist Party to confront unfair practices of big business. Progressivism appealed to middle and lower-class Americans who felt helpless against industrial giants like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, whose increasing power influenced politicians and the laws and regulations they sanctioned.
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
The success of the prohibition movement can be seen from many different views. It was measured by the prohibitionists many motives, their social make-up, their creative reasons they came up with to promote their cause, and the positive outcomes they imagined possible by prohibiting alcohol consumption.
Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News
Prohibition had become an issue long before its eventual induction as the 18th amendment in 1920. Organizations came about for the sole purpose of an alcohol free America. In 1833, an estimated one million Americans belonged to some type of temperance association (Behr 12). Many believed the absence of alcohol would help the poor as well as big business. Lower class people would put more money into savings accounts and productivity would increase among workers (Hanson 27). More importantly the “noble experiment”—was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, and improve the health and hygiene in America” (Thorton 1).
Do drugs really cause crime, or is it our governments way of controlling the communities? Many people blame drugs for every problem in our society, but is it the true evil in our society? No one person can answer that question. There are only opinions and supposed theories on this issue. We have been taught over the years that drugs were bad and that they only affected the poor and less fortunate, and turned them into crazy criminals, but this isn’t true to any extent. The laws controlling and prohibiting drugs are the true reasons. Would our crime levels decline if drugs were legalized to some extent, or would we just increase the destruction of our country? Over the past fifty years, prohibition has been proven to actually increase crime and drug use instead of its intended purpose, which was to extinguish the use of illicit drugs in the United States. We constantly here of prison over crowding, and why is that? Most of our prisons are filled with drug offenders, ranging from use to distribution of supposed illicit drugs. What is our country coming to? The purpose of this research paper is to view the advantages and disadvantages of the legalization of illicit drugs in the United States. I will examine each side of this major problem plaguing our fine country from past to present. People wake everyday to their normal and monotonous life without even thinking about what they are doing. They do not realize that they have been conditioned by the government and its laws to obey and follow the supposed norm of society. What is the norms of society, and who set the guidelines for them? No one can explain how these norms came about, they only know that they must follow them, or they could get in trouble with the law. We are going into the twenty first century, and we still follow laws that were passed hundreds of years ago. Why is this? We are a highly advanced country, but we spend time, lives and money on abiding by laws that were around before the automobile was even invented. I will begin with the history of our drug control policies, which have failed miserably, and examine the drug-crime connection. Policy History Drugs have been in this country since the beginning of time in some shape or form, which was used for personal and medicinal use. Usage of marijuana has been reported to date back to the founding of Jamestown (1). Ge...