« On Pulsifer watch again after SCOTUS indicates opinions are coming to close this week. | Main | Latest issue of Federal Sentencing Reporter now (partially freely) available »
March 13, 2024
Masschusetts Gov announces plans for mass pardon of all misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions in state
As repotted in this local article, Masschusetts "Gov. Maura Healey on Wednesday unveiled plans to pardon all people convicted of simple marijuana possession in Massachusetts." Here is more:
Her pardon was met with a round of applause from state elected officials, criminal justice reform advocates, people impacted by simple possession convictions and members of law enforcement who joined Healey for the announcement on the grand staircase steps inside the Massachusetts State House. Though the exact number is unknown, Healey's office said the pardon could affect "hundreds of thousands" of people in Massachusetts.
Healey's pardon forgives all state court misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana before March 13, 2024. It does not apply to charges of distribution, trafficking, or operating a motor vehicle under the influence. Healey said the pardon will be automatic for most people, but those who need proof of the pardon before their record is updated or believe they may have been passed over can apply through an online form. The plan still needs sign-off from the Governor's Council, the elected eight-member body that approves pardons and judicial confirmations.
Healey said the decision was about equity, noting that communities of color have been disproportionately targeted by law enforcement for drug possession. A 2016 report from the ACLU of Massachusetts found that while Black people represented only 8% of the state's population, they comprised 24% of marijuana possession arrests. "We can be certain that this pardon will redress some of the harm those disparities have caused in Massachusetts and we'll continue to do all that we can to eliminate racial injustice throughout our systems," Healey said.
Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan said the move is a prime example of how the state has been reforming the criminal justice system. “We've been working really hard in Massachusetts to be much more thoughtful about how can we really be smart about preserving public safety, but at the same time lessening the impact of the criminal system on people's lives," Ryan told WBUR. "And being able to do this is an important part of that.”
Healey in her 2022 campaign for governor had promised to pardon state convictions for simple marijuana possession. This week's announcement came after President Biden ordered pardons for people with federal simple possession convictions, and encouraged governors across the country to do the same.
People in Massachusetts are already able to expunge certain marijuana-related convictions after a landmark 2018 criminal justice reform law. But advocates criticize the process as bureaucratic and inaccessible, and multiple reports find it's rarely used. Past marijuana convictions and charges — even charges that were eventually dismissed — can show up on background checks, making it hard for those affected to secure jobs or housing....
Several members of the Governor's Council stood behind Healey during her announcement Wednesday. "It's the right thing to do," council member Paul DePalo said after the speech. "I can't speak for the other members but I do know that I'm not the only one who's enthusiastic about this." The Governor's Council is set to meet again at the end of the month.
An official press release from the Governor's office, titled "Governor Healey Announces Nation-Leading Effort to Pardon Marijuana Possession Misdemeanor Convictions," is available at this link. In addition, the Governor’s Office has made available this FAQ about this proposed pardon plan.
March 13, 2024 at 03:02 PM | Permalink
Comments
https://redstate.com/brutalbrittany/2024/03/13/house-judiciary-committee-launches-inquiry-into-arrest-of-january-6-journalist-steve-baker-n2171331
Doug?
Posted by: federalist | Mar 13, 2024 4:52:48 PM
As I have noted before, federalist, I would like to see much more investigation (and litigation) regarding DOJ's charging (and bargaining) practices based on claims of selective prosecution. I think I have asked if you would like to see US v. Armstrong overturned, and another possible route to address problematic DOJ charging practices would be to have Congress authorize greater discovery regarding DOJ practices. I think much greater DOJ transparency is needed, especially given the ugly dynamics of the stash-house sting cases and other worrisome DOJ practices. Does this example, federalist, make you more keen to actively endorse much more congressional and court scrutiny of DOJ charging practices?
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 13, 2024 5:07:47 PM
I’d love to know how many of these will be people arrested for more than possession but plead it down to that.
The plea bargain bonus on steroids.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Mar 13, 2024 6:22:28 PM
Yeah, Doug, you just can't bring yourself to say it, Merrick Garland is a fascist thug.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 14, 2024 9:29:43 AM
federalist, I try not to say people are fascists or thugs when I do not think they are fascists or thugs. Whatever name calling you enjoy, federalist, does not answer my question: Are you now actively endorsing much more congressional and court scrutiny of DOJ charging (and perhaps also bargaining) practices?
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 14, 2024 11:08:06 AM
With this crew, yes. But as you'll recall, the execrable Eric Holder, who should be spending the rest of his life in prison, blew off Congressional oversight and got away with it.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 14, 2024 1:03:19 PM
And Doug, what would you call prosecuting Baker while letting off other reporters?
Posted by: federalist | Mar 14, 2024 1:04:00 PM
Congress could give courts all sorts of means to allow criminal defendants to look behind DOJ charging and bargaining practices that will serve to provide transparency and accountability and should protect individuals from problematic government behaviors.
In the Baker case, my (mostly uninformed) understanding is that DOJ is claiming he was more involved as a rioter than just as a reporter. Requiring DOJ to account for how they reached this conclusion (and why it took 3+ years to do so) and whether other reporters have been scrutinized for Jan 6 capital presence all seems appropriate, and I am glad Congress is asking DOJ about these matters. But I would like to see the federal court where Baker has been charged with authority to conduct this kind of discovery (and to threaten dismissal if DOJ does not respond). I fear federal courts read US v. Armstrong to preclude any such efforts. That's why I asked if you would like to see US v. Armstrong overturned.
It is both amusing and sad, federalist, that your eyes are slowly getting open to the DOJ fiefdom and the need for more transparency and accountability. If only you could see that many problems are more about broader strucural imbalances in our criminal justice systems than about any short-term politicking (though that politicking can certainly raise the impact and salience of the structural imbalances).
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 14, 2024 3:02:15 PM
The DOJ is being politicized--that's a separate problem from what you decry.
I agree with you on Baker and discovery. You do remember, years ago, when a federal judge, Pickering, was looking into a sentence, and the 'rats savaged him.
Posted by: federalist | Mar 14, 2024 6:07:57 PM
As I have explained before, federalist, DOJ is always a political actor -- that's why structural checks, transparency and accountability are so important no matter who is in charge (and why, for example, sentencing appeal waivers trouble me). Becuase of your partisan disaffinity for "'rats," you seemingly only notice and care about DOJ politics when you do not like the DOJ team in power. I'd like to see Congress and courts scrutinizing DOJ charging and bargaining decisions regardless of which team is dictating DOJ's politics. You should, too, if you care more generally about individual liberty and restraints on punitive govenment powers.
As for Judge Pickering, I vaguely recall a lot of factors with racial issues played some role in his failure to secure confirmation to the Fifth Circuit 20+ years ago. But there is certainly a long history of both parties being disdainful of individual liberty and restraints on punitive powers when it serves their political interests. Broader principles, not today's contingent party politics, drive my views.
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 14, 2024 8:14:51 PM
Isn't there already a robust mechanism to act as a check on the prosecution -- namely, the jury unanimously to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did what the prosecution says he did, the trial court (if the defendant wants a trial) to determine that the statute is constitutional and addresses the defendant's conduct, and the court of appeals (if the defendant wants an appeal) to look at both those things?
As for the prosecution's "political priorities" in general -- hey, that's why we have elections, the ultimate accountability. In my view, the next election can't get here fast enough. Until then, this being a democracy, we live with what we chose at the LAST election.
The correct response to executive branch decisions with which one may disagree is not to make the judiciary supreme -- that would confound the Framers' intention to have CO-EQUAL branches, each with its own power and discretion. The answer is for the people to choose someone different to run the executive branch.
November, here we come!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Mar 15, 2024 4:34:39 PM
Bill, as you should realize, federalist is often complaining about DOJ's mostly unchecked charging powers --- and often claming that corruption explains DOJ's choices. The mechnisms you note largely fail to check DOJ's consequential charging (or, for that matter, bargaining) powers. And, absent greater transparency, it is hard for voters to have a robust understanding of DOJ's stated and unstated "political priorities."
That all said, Bill, I agree that there are some checks and balances on prosecutors in our system --- though the number of criminal cases with jury trials or appellate review are close to a rounding error (especially if you consider 10 million+ yearly misdemeanors). I would like to see a whole lot more checking and balancing. Not sure if federalist really cares about that; I sense he is more interested in team scoring.
Posted by: Doug B | Mar 15, 2024 5:17:24 PM
