Michigan Jury Convicts 70-Year-Old Woman for Pot Possession

From the Daily Tribune: 

An assistant prosecutor told jurors this morning to follow the law and not use sympathy when weighing the fate of a 70-year-old woman facing a drug charge.

Should this 70-year-old woman be sent to prison? What should be done with the medical marijuana law as well as the marijuana and drug laws in general? Comment below.

In the end, the jury heeded that advice and decided to convict Barbara Agro as charged. She faces sentencing July 13 on one count of delivery/manufacture of marijuana, a 4-year felony.

The former Lake Orion police dispatcher worked as a receptionist at a medical marijuana dispensary in Ferndale called Clinical Relief. When the facility was raided on Aug. 25, 2010, Agro told deputies that she had marijuana plants growing at her house. Deputies found 19 marijuana plants and other items during a search of her Lake Orion home.

"You must hold the defendant accountable for her actions," said Assistant Prosecutor Beth Hand during her closing argument.

Agro will be sentenced in July. 

Comments

[SIV]

Agro told deputies that she had marijuana plants growing at her house.

Maybe that shit really does rot your brain. I guess I just got lucky.

[Tulpa]

Senility and THC do not mix well.

[Episiarch]

So that explains your recent bitchiness!

[Tulpa]

When you bitch about alleged bitchiness, what does that make you?

[jerk]

quit yer bitchin

[pmains]

She's 70 years old and was being threatened by a gang of armed men. I'm willing to cut her some slack.

[Matt]

Yeah who knows what the context of that statement of hers was?

[You Know]

70 is the new 60.

[Matt]

Really, does the state of Michigan have NO SENSE of DECENCY?

This is shameful. Just absolutely shameful.

[AlmightyJB]

Actually, the state had no problems except for this old woman. Now that they took care of her, everything in Michigan is hunky dorey. I'm just glad they aren't facing any budget shortage, otherwise, they may have thought using their scany dollars for this would be a waste of money. Thank God the Stes are so lush with cash that they never have to consider how much things cost.

[Irresponsible Hater]

"You must hold the defendant accountable for her actions"

Not guilty!
Done.

Next case!

[Episiarch]

An assistant prosecutor told jurors this morning to follow the law and not use sympathy when weighing the fate of a 70-year-old woman facing a drug charge

Then what the fuck is the jury for?

[AlmightyJB]

Unfortunately, the Judges tell the jurors the same thing. We need more education about jury nullification out there so the people can tell the judges and prosecutors to go fuck themselves.

[SIV]

OMG! That idiot Sarah Palin thinks juries should decide matters of law as well as fact!
WHEREAS, September 5, 2007, will mark the 337th anniversary of the day when the jury, in the trial of William Penn, refused to convict him of violating England’s Conventicle Acts, despite clear evidence that he acted illegally by preaching a Quaker sermon to his congregation.

WHEREAS, by refusing to apply what they determined was an unjust law, the Penn jury not only served justice, but provided a basis for the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, religion, and peaceable assembly.

WHEREAS, September 5th, 2007, also commemorates the day when four of Penn’s jurors began nine weeks of incarceration for finding him not guilty. Their later release and exoneration established forever the English and American legal doctrine that it is the right and responsibility of the trial jury to decide on matters of law and fact.

WHEREAS, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments are included in the Bill of Rights to preserve the right to trial by jury, which in turn conveys upon the jury the responsibility to defend, with its verdict, all other individual rights enumerated or implied by the U.S. Constitution, including its Amendments.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska, do hereby proclaim September 5, 2007, as:

Jury Rights Day

in Alaska, in recognition of the integral role the jury, as an institution, plays in our legal system.

Dated: August 31, 2007

[Mensan]

"...four of Penn’s jurors began nine weeks of incarceration for finding him not guilty.

At least they don't do that anymore. I guess as long as someone went to jail the court was happy.

[Um]

Then what the fuck is the jury for?

I'm pretty sure they get to listen to the defense attorneys too.

[dunphy]

you do realize that the job of the prosecutor is to argue A SIDE of the issue, and present facts. it is not to present an either/or debate. it is the job of the defense to offer a counterargument

it is the job of the jury as the trier of fact (and under nullification - the trier of law) to weigh the evidence on both sides.

[Um]

Furthermore, at H&R we never hear about the ones who got away. It's always cops in a complete-game shutout.

[Fluffy]

Actually, a friend of mine writes a blog that deals in part with his experiences as a defense attorney, so I get to read about some of the ones that get away.

Reading his stuff doesn't make me more confident in the system. It makes me less confident.

Because when you read about some of the totally random shit that allows people to walk, you say, "OK, if those people could walk, why couldn't this woman?"

The element of chance in our system of justice overall freaks me out a little.

One kid smoking dope in Manhattan in the 80's gets busted and works as a laborer for the rest of his life. Another kid doing the same thing doesn't get busted and is now President of the United States.

Mitch Daniels deals pot and gets caught and is a Senator. This old lady grows pot and the prosecutor demands no mercy.

[zoltan]

LINK!

There's a great TX-centered legal blog called Grits for Breakfast if anyone's interested.

[Night Elf Mohawk]

It's also the job of the prosecutor to decide which cases to pursue, isn't it?

[dunphy]

yes. and frankly, i don't think prosecutors should pursue ANY mj cases, but that's because i don't think it should be illegal in the first place.

however, given that it's illegal, and that GROWING (the article in a completely dishonest trick claims she was convicted for POSSESSION, when in fact it was a grow op (iow what is referred to as manufacture or cultivation NOT merely possession) is a felony, assuming he had a strong case evidentiarily, why shouldn't he have prosecuted?

should prosecutors individually only choose to prosecute cases if they happen to like the law as policy?

or should they accept that, under a system of rule of law and seperation of powers, the bad policy is the fault of the legislators... and arguably the jury who refuses to nullify.

i can't find blame for a prosecutor in this case. but again, the reasonoids tend to blame the wrong parties. the legislature could change the law TOMORROW in this jurisdiction and legalize growing mj (setting up a major war against the feds, but so what)

prosecutors can't change the law. legislators can

[Yup]

Yup.

[erikjay]

It does not work like that ANYWHERE in this country. Prosecutors decide what to prosecute, and have full discretion. Whether a decision not to prosecute is based on what prosecutors "like" or a cost/benefit calculation is immaterial -- they have the discretion, and they use it. That's why cops and prosecutors are rarely held to account for ANYTHING. Sure, sure, the legislators are asleep at the wheel, but that's why we have a lot of checks and balances -- which DO include prosecutorial discretion AND jury nullification. I am waiting hopefully for some kind of prosecutorial nullification, know what I mean?

[I, Kahn O'Clast]

OK. Enough. No more weaseling out of Jury Duty. More, it is time to picket in front of courthouses informing jurors to throw out pot cases. Enough enough enough!

[OK]

You first. Send pictures.

[capitol l]

Is it hard to type and lick boot at the same time, or have you just gotten better with practice?

Fucking fecalpheliac sycophants.

[OK]

Who, me? I'm expressing skepticism at I, Kahn's call to action. What are you doing for "the cause," besides bitching ineffectually on H&R?

[capitol l]

So you don't deny that you're a shiteating bootlicker? Interesting.

*and yes I have done exactly what Kahn has called for (standing in front of a court house with signs and all) I'll even try to get some video of an event or two...not that I have anything to justify to a shiteating bootlicker.

[OK]

Oh yes, I'm a "shiteating bootlicker" who must resort to name-calling to...wait, it's you doing the name-calling. Nice technique. You'll go places with it. Looking forward to the video.

[capitol l]

ADHOM! ADHOM! ADHOM! THE NARCISSIST CALLED ME NAMES! WAAHHHH!

Just put your name and address in the little box thingy there and hit submit. Your videos will be arriving shortly.

[dunphy]

i agree. i have seen several people in the past celebrate that they weaseled out of jury duty. that's disgusting imo. especially if one is an advocate of justice and a critic of the state of our criminal "justice" system, one should not shirk jury duty.

*be* the decider

[capitol l]

Looks like we see eye to eye on this one, dunphy. I tell people I know, especially the ones that bitch the drug war, to jump at the chance to do jury duty. And, if it's a drug case nullify the shit out of it.

[dunphy]

seems commonsense to me. fwiw, i would like to serve jury duty. many cops would get an automatic bump from the jury by defense since they ASSUME we would be pro prosecution, but i am FAR from biased for the prosecution.

i'd love to serve jury duty. see it from the other side, so to speak.

i know some agencies pay their officers their normal wage while they are on jury. not sure about mine

[Tulpa]

Reality is, if you display any coherent thought patterns during voir dire the odds are against you of getting on the jury. I've got my 4th jury duty call next week and am fully expecting to get dismissed by the prosecution for the 4th time.

Maybe I should try drooling on myself this time.

[capitol l]

Holy shit man, I go in on the 22nd. Let's nullify some shit. Just act the bootlicker and wear one of those teeshirts with a happy face on it...I'll find you.

[jerk]

yinz need to start nullifyin

[capitol l]

Tulpa's right, there ain't a snowball's chance in hell they'd put me on a jury.

[jerk]

not with that attitude! I'm sure there's a tractor pull you can attend to get your mind right.

[OK]

You're spoiling cap's fantasy, dude.

[Greg]

I just got a notice for Jury Duty in the mail even though I'm not a citizen and already sent them a copy of my passport/Green Card. So if I'm getting a notice I'm worried that it's because I popped up on a fresh new list of some kind, which is never a fun idea

[OK]

Show up wearing a dress. You'll be fine.

[capitol l]

That's a fine idea. I was also going to wear these fabulous boots I have, but alas they're all dirty. There's dogshit in the treads, and I acidentally pissed all over the tops of them when I was drunk.

If there were only someone around who could put a good shine on them...hmmm

[OK]

If you can reach your own dick, it's just a little farther to your boots. But you know that.

[capitol l]

Awe c'mon buddy, don't be like that. These boots really need a cleanin' and you're the best.

I know you probably got a backlog of cop's an ADA's boots to do, but couldn't ya move an ol' H&R friend up the list?

[Tulpa]

Mine is the 17th. I'm just happy they pushed back the Jane Orie retrial to October...that one's gonna take forever.

I was pissed to find out the retard torture murder occured in Westmoreland Co rather than Allegheny...I've always wanted to be on a death jury.

[capitol l]

People always think of the big cases in the news when they get called, but most likely you'll be deciding some minor uninteresting bullshit.

I remember the torture case, that was fucked up.

[Pro Libertate]

The one trial I was on the panel for was a criminal case. . .a violation of a restraining order. It was so convoluted and so poorly prosecuted that there was no chance of a conviction.

[cynical]

Huh, I've never even gotten one call.

[dunphy]

kate beckinsdale has never made even one call to me either.

life isn't fair, man. deal with it

[Fluffy]

Dude - JUST LIE.

Are you telling me you don't know how to act to get on a jury?

I could do it here, but the only cases that ever go to jury around here seem to involve underage trailer park sex, and I wouldn't want to nullify one of those. And if I can't have the fun of hanging a drug case jury I don't want to waste my time.

[capitol l]

Isn't that perjury?

[Fluffy]

So what?

Don't force me to Godwin.

[Joe M]

In school, I played the role that Henry Fonda played in Twelve Angry Men. I've always wanted to be that guy in real life.

[Oso Politico]

Incarceration is too lenient. Hanging and quartering, and sending her heart to be displayed in all corners of the Empire as a lesson - now that's punishment!

[sarcasmic]

Isn't jury nullification illegal?

I mean, the law is the law, right?

If you don't like the law you change it. You must still follow it while it is the law.

Slavery was like totally OK when it was legal because it was legal, and it only became bad when it was made illegal.

The law is the law.

[skr]

that's a pretty good one. I think I'll have to use it.

[CatoTheElder]

Not only was slavery legal, assisting a fugitive slave was illegal.

So, state nullification and jury nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act were bogus?

Put me on a drug possession jury and I'll vote to acquit ... period. Unfortunately, my county's prosecutor already knows that.

[Barely Suppressed Rage]

So who's going to hold Assistant Prosecutor Beth Hand "accountable for her actions"?

I know several assistance Commonwealth's Attorneys here in VA - classmates of mine from law school. One in particular (who happens to be female) routinely gloats on her FB page about winning cases. Most of the time, I have no problem with it, because the people often are murderers, robbers, etc., who deserve to go to jail. But it's just whole "yeah, I showed you; I won; you lost" tone that repulses me.

Too many prosecuting attorneys are interested only in winning the case, not in arriving at a solution that serves justice.

[Tman]

Justice? Ha ha. That's hilarious. A jury of her peers convicted her despite the fact that they had the option to say "we are not throwing 70 year old ladies in jail for growing weed".

We have the best worst system of them all and we still fuck it up.

Sometimes we get justice I suppose. And I'm pretty sure we get more than most places. But no system can protect us from human stupidity.

[Comment Tater]

"we are not throwing 70 year old ladies in jail for growing weed."

Her age is immaterial. So is the fact that she may be a grandmother who bakes delicious cookies. Her defense should be argued with an appeal to principles, not emotions.

[dunphy]

any good defense attorney knows that when the facts aren't on your side- you SHOULD argue emotions, because you don't have anything else and your job is to get your obviously guilty as fuck client OFF. that's what you are supposed to do.

it's the prosecutor that is supposed to (and god knows many don't) be above that kind of bullshit

[CatoTheElder]

"Too many prosecuting attorneys are interested only in winning the case, not in arriving at a solution that serves justice."

And that's why prosecutors just love the WOD. The cases are so straightforward. The mere possession of a substance constitutes the crime. The cops discover the substance in the possession of the criminal and seize the contraband as evidence. The evidence of the crime is easily demonstrated by the siezed contraband, the existence of which virtually proves the crime. The only necessary witness testimony is that of the cop who siezed it, which is usually taken as gospel. Offer a deal to the defendant's lawyer, and it's another successful prosecution.

Real crimes are much more difficult to investigate and prosecute. That's why the cops are so useless if your house or car are broken into. Well, not totally useless, but only because you need a police report to file an insurance claim.

[dunphy]

right. because we never solve auto thefts or burglaries (rolls eyes...)

[capitol l]

My experience (anecdotal, I know) has been that if your stuff is stolen there is nothing the cops can do, but they will coordinate like a motherfucker to get a guy selling a couple pounds of pot.

[Gray Ghost]

No, dunphy, you really don't. Certainly not at the rate you "solve" drug possession and distribution cases. Absent the very rare chop shop raid, or catching the dumb ass car thief still driving around in the stolen car, I'm willing to bet you solve very little auto thefts or burglaries. What's your clearance rate on reported crimes like this?

Anecdote is not data, but I too have had my stuff stolen and the cops who I made the report to laughed out loud at the thought of me getting my stuff back.

[Number 2]

Michigan is a medical marijuana state. So why was local law enforcement raiding a medical marijuana facility in the first place? Something sounds fishy.

[dunphy]

*if* the raid of the clinic was unjustified, then the admission by the defendant should get thrown out on appeal , since it would fall under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

however, even though medical mj is legal there, it doesn't necessarily follow that the raid wasn't justified.

*if* the cops had PC to raid the dispensary for a violation of law, and applied for a warrant, which they apparently did, then it's justified - legally.

the problem with medical mj laws in many states is that they are written so poorly that it is very difficult for dispensaries etc. to follow them to the letter.

it doesn't help when my state (WA) has a cowardly governor that also won't stand up to the feds, who can raid the clinics regardless of what state law says since they are a sovereign and they think they can do "whatever they want" a la cartman

[Robert]

The recent round of med mj laws do tend to be written poorly. The previous round (late 1970s-early 1980s) were drafted to fit in well with existing statutes, but unfortunately included some timid provisions that allowed their effects to be administratively shelved. Recent activists have basically ignored existing pharmacy laws in their states and produced a situation where it's not clear which provisions take precedence over contradictory provisions once they're consolidated with the rest of the state's statutes.

[Comment Tater]

It's almost as if the laws are being written by a bunch of stoners.

[dunphy]

the sad thing is the average stoner could probably write legislation about as well as the average legislator. probably be less likely to be blatantly unconstitutional either (volokh.com has had some great articles on BLATANTLY unconstitutional legislation that gets passed all the time.)

[Alan]

Note also that the defense was PROHIBITED from pointing out that this lady was growing the pot for medical use.

I think there's something wrong with defendants being prohibited from defending themselves.

[dunphy]

what a shit article.

the very title of the article contradicts the text

Title:Michigan Jury Convicts 70-Year-Old Woman for Pot Possession

text: she was convicted of delivery/manufacture.

seriously, reason. how about a LITTLE proofreading and accuracy?

[Joe M]

The distinction is the technical crime name versus the reality.

[dunphy]

no, it's not. it's called accurate journalism. neither the law nor common sense equate "pot possession" with a grow of 19 plants

this is the kind of funhouse mirror reefer madness that NORML does. i would expect better from Reason.

if i said "sally was busted for pot possession" most people would assume they meant she had some pot.

you do not assume she was GROWING Pot.

you would say "mary got arrested for growing pot" or something like that.

it's disingenuous/sloppy at best, if not an outright lie.

even in (relatively) pot friendly canada, the law is harsher for GROWING 19 plants than it is for merely possessing a few buds.

in my state, it's the difference between a gross misdemeanor, that often results in a mere warning by a cop and.or a minor fine upon conviction vs. a felony charge (granted, one that is often pled down to misdemeanor).

in states that have decrim'd, NONE of them decrim a grow of 19 plants

so, again... that's just crap what you are saying.

it;s dishonest what the title did.

and ridiculously bad journalism

[Wind Rider]

So, assuming you're not mathematically challenged, mind hazarding a guess as to the wide influence of this nefarious criminal enterprise effected? How many people? A dozen? A whole kindergarten class?

My guess would be herself, and one, maybe two people. Any photos of the grow? Happen to look like a stair step pattern perhaps? Whole thing seems kinds silent on the specifics, such as heights or stages of development the plants may have been in.

Talk about your dishonest representation and distortion, dunphy - either you're completely ignorant of the life cycle/productivity of cannabis for a limited personal grow, or willfully disregarding that, in favor of a half assed rationalization for throwing the book at a rather forthcoming older woman.

Is the activity she engaged in really, truly a heinous act deserving to be a jailable offense? A felony even?

Is this not fundamentally simply batshit insane?

[dunphy]

again, just a blatant evasion

the point is she wasn't convicted of pot possession

it is neither the layman's definition NOR the legal definition of possession - growing 19 plants in your home

that is referred to variously as manufacture, "growing", cultivating, etc. but POSSESSION is when you ... wait for it... possess some buds. not engage in a grow op

it's dishonest. i am 100% against the WOD and think MJ, to INCLUDE growing - should be legal

but it's still shoddy journalism and disingenuous

those with intellectual honesty will concede it's a shit poorly titled article, if not outright a lie

[zoltan]

Yawwwwwwn. Growing something is possession it.

[Fluffy]

Fuck off.

I view the legal theory that the possession of a large quantity of a substance proves that you were selling it to be bogus.

Want to prove someone's selling something? Bring me evidence of a sale.

The simple fact of the matter is that if the substance is harmless enough to allow people to have one plant, it doesn't matter if she has eleventy billion plants.

I also believe that a legal regime that holds that it is legal to own something but not sell it is preposterous on its face.

I don't believe the legislatures possess the moral authority or the legitimate power to declare any property contraband whatsoever. And if they can't stop anyone from owning a particular piece of property, they can't stop anyone from selling that property either. I honestly don't care what compelling interest they think they're serving in doing so.

[dunphy]

i didn't say it proves she was selling it. she may or may not have. i didn't read the courtroom testimony, or even the PC cert, nor did you.

what i am saying it is a LIE (or just incredibly sloppy) to claim the jury convicted her for "pot possession"

that is a question of fact, not inference or opinion

the jury convicted her of a certain crime

you can argue that is unjust. i can too. that's called OPINION

you cannot argue that they convicted her of pot possession. that is simply a lie. it is not accurate, nor arguable

they convicted her of specific offenses. the key charge was the "manufacture" iow the growing/cultivation of mj

at best, possession was a lesser included offense.

if you say "the jury convicted her of growing pot" that would be layman speak, but ACCURATE

if you say "pot possession" it's a fucking lie, and you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that

lies, in pursuit of a noble cause are still lies.

mj legalization is a noble cause. printing lies to support that cause is still fuckstick shoddy journalism

[Fluffy]

She had pot.

They found out she had pot.

They convicted her of a crime.

Therefore, she is going to prison because she possessed pot.

As I said, the gradations of the charges here may be important to you, but they are distinctions without a difference to me.

[dunphy]

again, a wonderful evasion and justification for lying and poor journalism.

satying a jury convicted her for "pot possession" is simply factually inaccurate.

the law, and the laypublic doesn't think that possessing pot and growing pot are the same

nor would a horticulturist or anybody else with a functioning brain.

you can certainly argue neither should be illegal. that's an opinion. i agree

you can argue that one shouldn't be looked at as more egregious than the other. again, an opinion

it is simply a lie to argue the jury convicted her of pot possession

again, if you had intellectual honesty, you'd admit that.

however, your ideology (which is probably the same as mine vis a vis pot) allows you (as a dishonest person) to accept lies in furtherance of your cause. i disagree

the first rule of journalism is getting the facts right.

"fake but accurate" didn't work for dan rather, and this isn't fake, but it IS inaccurate.

and then the lies continue. somebody else remarks that (assume she gets a week in jail) "man, some 70 yr old lady got a WEEK IN JAIL just for pot possession. i saw it in reason."

and the lies in pursuit of advocacy journalism feed on themselves.

she was convicted of growing 19 pot plants. that's layman speak, but accurate

[Fluffy]

and then the lies continue. somebody else remarks that (assume she gets a week in jail) "man, some 70 yr old lady got a WEEK IN JAIL just for pot possession. i saw it in reason."

That statement would be true.

YOU STILL DON'T GET IT.

Let's say that the state came up with a series of political speech crimes.

And they had a very involved system of classification for crimes they considered more or less severe.

And they decided that speech that, say, called for withdrawing from overseas US bases was called "Unpatriotic Speech".

But they also decided that speech that opposed the drug war was "Terrorist Supporting Crack Baby Killing Speech".

And we had a 70 year old lady convicted of "Terrorist Supporting Crack Baby Killing Speech".

And Reason ran the headline "70 Year Old Woman Going to Jail for Speaking".

If you showed up to concern troll about the fine distinctions of the charge, I would tell you to fuck off.

"But REPORTING SHOULD BE ACCURATE!" you would sputter. "They didn't send her to prison for speaking. They sent her to prison for Terrorist Supporting Crack Baby Killing Speech! You damn ideologues! How dare you lie in the service of your cause!"

I submit to you that it's only a lie if I accept the distinction to begin with. I decline to and refuse. Next question.

[dunphy]

oh, and if a guy gets convicted for running a meth lab is the reason article title going to be "man convicted for possessing meth?"

i would hope not

[OK]

Happens all the time here. The line between unemotional, fact-reporting journalism and advocacy propaganda has been obliterated. The puppets kids seem to like it.

[Fluffy]

You think it's an important distinction.

I don't.

In fact, were I to go along with you in considering it an important distinction, I would effectively be conceding BOTH the entire prohibition argument, AND the central arguments behind the creation of the modern regulatory superstate.

Why would I want to do that?

[dunphy]

this is simply justifying a lie. apparently, for you, lying in pursuit of a noble cause in journalism is ok with you.

not for me.

it simply a lie. she was convicted for growing mj. in layman speak

saying she was convicted of possession is like reporting that a person who was convicted of "murder" was convicted of assault. the latter is almost always a lesser included offense, but it's inaccurate

it would be entirely justifiable to say she was UNJUSTIFIABLY convicted of manufacture, etc.

it is otoh a lie to say she was convicted of possession

we are entitled to our own opinions. mine are probably pretty similar in re: pot. i don't think ANYBODY should, in a perfect world, go to jail for pot offenses

but that's not the issue

reporting should be factual. this is not. i don't expect the author to correct this. although that would be intellectually honest. i would expect any intellectually honest person here to admit the fact

she was convicted of manufacture/growing, etc. that's accurate.

[Fluffy]

You just don't get it.

I don't believe that the state possesses the moral authority to declare the possession of any category of legitimately-obtained (i.e. unstolen) property illegal.

I also don't believe the state possesses the moral authority to restrict the ability of the owner of any property from disposing of that property via an economic exchange.

This means that the entire system of classification the state currently employs to distinguish between different contraband-related activities is not only irrelevant to me - it also carries within it semantic content that expresses the state's point.

Why do you think it's an important distinction to have the headline say she was convicted of distribution instead of possession? Answer: Because you have bought into the theory that this is somehow a "more serious" crime, and that by calling it possession instead of distribution Reason is concealing vital information about the event.

But that could only be true if the state's contraband laws were morally valid in the first place.

Playing along with the state's classification system for marijuana crimes implicitly concedes that "dealers" are worse than "users", AND implicitly concedes that the state can rightly regulate private economic exchanges ("Well, it would be one thing if she was just growing it to smoke, but there she was growing it to SELL!" "Gasp!"). Why would I want to do either of those things?

[dunphy]

this isn't about moral authority.

if you are a member of NAMBLA and you don't think that schtupping a 7 yr old should be illegal, great. that's an OPINION

if you engage in advocacy journalism and write an an article that claims a man convicted of having sex with a 7 yr old in fact was convicted of "being nice to a 7 yr old" because you don't see a moral distinction, that's inaccurate journalism.

actually, what reason does is worse because 'being nice' is vague, but when people think "pot possession" they don't think manufacture/grow, they think POSSESSION

you can't justify a moral stance by lying or ignoring facts

that's what intellectually dishonest ideologues do, REGARDLESS of their political beliefs.

as somebody who believes in integrity (never lied in court and never will), i believe that once you lose that, you lose a lot more.

you can continue to defend the indefensible, but all you do is DIMINISH the noble cause of pot legalization

i would prefer the liars be the prohibitionists.

sadly, the fact is there are liars, such as you, on both sides of the spectrum

[Fluffy]

actually, what reason does is worse because 'being nice' is vague, but when people think "pot possession" they don't think manufacture/grow, they think POSSESSION

Not me.

So every point you have made in this thread is irrelevant.

I don't care if the pot you are smoking was purchased on a street corner or grown in your basement.

Again, this is the type of error statists make all the time. You believe that because it is customary for the state to draw a particular distinction, that makes it real. It's not.

The state makes many distinctions between the purchase of labor from "employees" and the purchase of
labor from independent third parties. Every last one of those distinctions is baseless nonsense. But there are many "crimes" you could commit if the state thinks you're doing the former that you can't commit if you're doing the latter.

"OH MY GOD YOU'RE SUCH A LYING PROPAGANDIST if you won't carry water for your opponents in an argument by buying into their terminology and employing it!"

[Fluffy]

if you are a member of NAMBLA and you don't think that schtupping a 7 yr old should be illegal, great. that's an OPINION

if you engage in advocacy journalism and write an an article that claims a man convicted of having sex with a 7 yr old in fact was convicted of "being nice to a 7 yr old" because you don't see a moral distinction, that's inaccurate journalism.

Actually, technically if a member of NAMBLA wrote this they wouldn't be lying.

It's not a lie if you sincerely believe it.

[Fluffy]

"Reporting should be factual" - yes, it should. But not when the "facts" are a state propaganda framing device.

It's like saying that it's a "lie" to call the NATO action in Libya a "war".

"You're lying! It's been declared a kinetic military action! No one declared war! How dare you! REPORTING SHOULD BE FACTUAL!"

[dunphy]

again, the lying in defense of a cause is the kind of despicable tactics, i sadly expect from pot legalization advocates, as much as prohibitionists. you are a funhouse mirror version of the kind of person who made reefer madness. no lie in pursuit of a cause is unjustified.

there's not much dispute. she was growing pot and she was convicted of same. that's the reality

honest journalism wouldn't claim in the title of the article she was convicted of POSSESSIOn to try to make a point (that she was unjustly convicted), when the facts of what the jury convicted her of, are different

all liars like you do is harm the cause of legalization. you are just as venal as prohibitionists who would lie for their cause.

when earnest, honest people read such reports, their eyes glaze over. because they recognize it's just a lie for a cause.

if i, as a cop, lied in court because i didn't accept their moral authority to put people in jail for whatever offense i was testifying in, would that be ok?

[Fluffy]

I am growing tomato plants in my back yard right now.

I possess those tomato plants.

It's not even fake but accurate to say I possess those tomato plants. It's accurate-accurate.

[Fluffy]

By the way,

Since your post at 9:35 was submitted as a response to my post at 9:28, it really should reply to the content of my post at 9:28 and it doesn't.

I want you to respond to my argument concerning the Libya campaign. Is it, or is it not, "lying" and "disreputable journalism" to refuse to employ the state's preferred terminology in that case?

And if it's not, why is it "lying" to refuse to employ the state's preferred terminology in this lady's case?

And if you think it IS a lie to refuse to go along and refuse to call Libya a war, you really need to present a compelling case to back up that kind of douchy assertion.

[dunphy]

what's sad is so many people are so steeped in their ideology that they fail to see this. it;s like trying to engage a creationist and present scientific reason (heh) to them.

this stuff IS like a religion to many people. no lie, no amount of cognitive dissonance, no evasion, etc. would surprise me.

everything is ok in pursuit of the cause.

[Yup]

This is why arguing with strangers on the internet is an exercise in futility. You make many good points and are one of the few consistently logical people here, but you'll never succeed in convincing those whose minds are made up and whose sole purpose for being here is to argue endlessly to kill time.

[Fluffy]

Blow me.

This statist douche hasn't adequately answered a single one of my points. Not one.

[Arcaster]

Fluffy is right. He's simply refusing to use the rhetoric used by the state. Regardless of the technical name of the charge, this woman has been convicted because there was pot in her possession. It's as simple as that.

[zoltan]

Agreed. I don't see the difference between growing and possession.

[dunphy]

oh, and the jury , contra what the prosecutor said ... DID NOT have to hold her accountable. they could have nullified, but didn't. i agree that more education needs to be done in re jury nullification. maybe they truly didn't think growing 19 plants merited nullification. otoh, maybe they didn't know they had the option

[Tulpa]

"The law is reason free from passion."
-- Aristotle

I don't think pot should be illegal, but I'm also not getting why her age should matter in the verdict. Are we supposed to give elderly people carte blanche to break the law? Perhaps in sentencing it should, but not in determining guilt.

[jerk]

sentence her to 2 years of hard knitting. callouses are lessons about growing illicit plants and I need a new sweater.

actually is 70 even old anymore? I work with plenty near that age.

[Tulpa]

"Oh, your fingers hurt? Well, now your back's gonna hurt too, cause you just drew landscaping duty!"

[Matt]

In practice, defense attorneys will often use someone's elderly age as a reason to go lighter on the sentence or even not convict. I think it's a reasonable distinction. We don't treat children as harshly as adults -- why treat the elderly as harshly? In many cases they are more vulnerable than the rest of us. It is barbaric and uncivilized to think that an elderly person can handle hard prison time as easily as a 25 year old could.

[Tulpa]

Children are treated more leniently because they (presumably) don't understand things as well as an adult does. It has nothing to do with vulnerability.

90 pound weaklings in their twenties aren't going to fare well in prison either, but we don't give them a get out of jail free card either.

[Matt]

That may be one factor, but I think the vulnerability aspect comes into play too. I should have qualified my statement with "all things being equal, a 70 year old can't handle hard prison time as well as a 25 year old." And I think even infirm young adults have a reasonable case to make for an alternative to jail or reduced sentence, depending on the circumstances.

We're not talking about an accused serial killer here, we're talking about a lady who grew some plants in her own home.

[Matt]

For a prosecutor to say essentially "show no mercy" to the jury in this specific case comes off as pretty cruel. I understand the prosecutor has a particular job but they also have their own discretion. Couldn't this big shot woman prosecutor be better serving the community by going after people who are actually violent? I thought females were supposed to be the fairer sex...I guess they're just as bloodthirsty as us guys.

[dunphy]

she probably could. but you do realize (maybe) that in any jurisdiction of decent size, they have specific prosecutors who handle drug crimes and different prosecutors who handle crimes against persons, etc. they require different expertise, etc.

there are particularities of case law, strategy etc.

that's how pretty much every prosecutor's office in the USA works (of any decent size)

there are prosecutors who do, for example, almost exclusively dui's . others do exclusively domestic violence cases. etc.

fwiw, many defense attorneys are the same way. some do exclusively dui's, for instance.

of course it sounds cruel for the prosecutor to argue "no mercy". but that's her job. it's the job of the defense to argue "mercy" (presumably since arguing his client wasn't actually guilty as fuck wasn't much of an option i would assume since she admitted to growing, and they found the grow)

it is the job of the JURY to weigh both sides and come to the conclusion

that's how an adversarial system is SUPPOSED to work

[Matt]

Just because the executive branch can enforce the letter of the laws to the utmost detail and against everyone regardless of circumstances doesn't mean they should. Prosecutors use discretion in picking and choosing their cases every day. If every since crime that was ever committed (no matter how small or technically a "crime") was enforced to the fullest extent of the law, the entire population of the US would probably spend at least a year in jail sometime in their life, probably much more. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

[Matt]

I'd love for someone to make a documentary similar to Super Size Me called "Prosecute Me," where the host pores through every minute law on the books and calculates how much jail time we'd all spend if we were all fully prosecuted for all of these crimes.

[Fluffy]

Genius

[zoltan]

I agree with Tulpa here; why are you focusing on age? If it were a 20-year-old black guy I would be just as furious, I don't need appeals for sympathy.

[dunphy]

it's kind of an analog to that one guys (remember the article) "daughter test" about how he judged whether stuff should be illegal based on "well, would i want my daughter doing it?"

like it or not, if enough 70 yr old women are doing pot, and especially getting convicted for it, it's FAR more likely for people to go "hey, wait a minute. these laws are fucked up. if 70 yr old otherwise law abiding grandmas are doing this stuff, should it be illegal" vs. them having sympathy for a 19 yr old gangbanger with 2 priors for robbery getting convicted of the same thing.

that's the reality. and i've said it a bunch of times - libertarians need to be more pragmatic

granted, no matter WHAT the crime, people are going to have more sympathy for a 70 yr old female suspect than a 19 yr old male suspect.

regardless, if it's an effective tactic in the fight against the WOD and it opens people's eyes and doesn't involve dishonesty - i say use it

[Wind Rider]

See: above.

[Aristotle's Ghost]

The law is not reason, it is the naive man's attempt to banish uncertainty from an inherently uncertain world. What is the meaning of judgment where there is no law? Reason. What is its meaning where there is? Interpretation.

As the potential of man's mind is unbounded, so must any incarnate body of law which means to govern him tend to be. Do not complain then, should you choose that path, when you find yourself faced with a dumb, inanimate, rigid, and infinitely corruptible framework of so-called justice, masquerading under the name of law.

True law is immutable; it is learned by observation, not created by edict.

[Matt]

Yeah anyone who thinks that the law is somehow the indisputable voice of reason just because someone wrote it down and called it a law should read some Kafka.

[dunphy]

to paraphrase "if that is the law, the law is an ass"

[Fluffy]

Well, I think it's a question of the moral culpability of the jury.

I think that juries should nullify for ALL drug defendants.

But I am more understanding of jurors' hesitancy to do so when a scary-looking thug is on trial.

If someone covered in prison-assassin tattoos is on trial for drug possession or distribution and a juror says to himself, "Wow, I don't want to let this scary guy go!" I'll think that they are wrong in principle, but I'll try to understand and tolerate their mistake.

But unless this is one SCARY lookin' old lady, no one has any grounds for asking me to understand and tolerate their error here.

[dunphy]

you really don't understand how trials actually work do you. unless the prison tattoos are on his face, they will necessarily be covered up in trial, as they are prejudicial. heck, there are even cases where defendants use rather well done makeup to cover up tats on their face, for the same reason.

the jury may have felt they were duty bound (which of course they aren't - see nullification) or for all you know ... this client may have been extremely unsavory . you are ASSUMING the 70 yr old defendant is sympathetic because of her age/gender.

that is most likely the case, but it is not necessarily the case.

some of the phelps clan are probably close in age and gender to this woman. i wouldn't consider them sympathetic defendants.

not all 70 yr old ladies ARE sympathetic. even a 70 yr old woman can be an asshole.

(and of course i support the phelps right to protest funerals, despite the fact they are pieces of shit. the constitution matters)

[Fluffy]

So your argument is that no defendant presents a more frightening prospect than any other defendant?

Yeah, OK.

Yup, absolutely, I'm assuming the defendant presents a lower-than-average degree of scariness to this jury because of her age and gender.

HOLY SHIT WHAT A CRAZY ASSUMPTION!

Wow, good thing I qualified it with the clause that started with the words "But unless", huh?

Fucking qualifying clauses, how do they work?

[dunphy]

no that's not what i am assuming.

what i am saying is you do not know anywhere near the facts and circumstances known to the jury. you are assuming she was a sympathetic defendant. she very well may not have been.

not all 70 yr old women are. god knows sunny von bulow wasn't, but alan dershowitz is damn good at his job (a man i have a lot of respect for, and an amazing defense attorney i might add)

[OK]

Effective propaganda is as much about what is written as what is not written. Notice that Riggs included a quote from the prosecution but not the defense? Subtle but effective. Yesterday there was a story about two women who were cited for eating doughnuts. Problem is, they were not cited for eating doughnuts. They were cited for being in a children-only playground. Did the Reason editor lie, make an honest mistake, or write a headline that optimized the propaganda value of his story? It happens all the time here, and the puppets kids eat it up.

[capitol l]

Good thing that we have a strong willed fecalpheliac, like yourself, around to show us the error of our ways.

[Fluffy]

The reason the headline was written that way is because the entire concept of a children-only playground is absurd.

There is no way to actually describe what happened in that event without boiling it down to its essentials, namely: they were given tickets for sitting on a bench and eating donuts, when the state did not want them to do that.

[Wow]

There is no way to actually describe what happened in that event

How about Adults cited for using children-only playground?

There. Was that so hard?

[Arcaster]

Maybe you missed the part about the children-only playground being absurd, or maybe you just want dunphy to be so pleased by your comments that he'll let you blow him. I'm guessing the latter.

[Wow]

From the Wiki:

Yellow journalism or the yellow press is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension "Yellow Journalism" is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

Hope this makes you less ignorant of journalistic ethics. As for your anger management issues, seek professional help.

[Adam]

At least they didn't shoot her?

[jerk]

yet, wait for sentencing.

[nekoxgirl]

Or her dog.

[bagoh20]

Some youngsters are gonna tell a 70 year old that she can't grow what she wants in her garden? The State is a godsend.

[dunphy]

yes, those youngsters are called "the legislature"

[john]

i'm assuming the court brought forth quite a slew of victims who have been irrepairably hurt by the defendant. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME. personally, i'd love to be on a jury for a case like this. i'd bring a pillow and have the baillif wake me when the victim's were paraded.

[GH]

California, which is as backwards as can be in most areas, has begun publishing the wages and compensation of state, county, and local employees. Michigan residents need this kind of information too. Just how many hours did assistant prosecutor, Beth Hand, spend on this case, and how much money (the whole wad: health insurance and pension included) did she earn doing so?

The MI taxpayers might be interested in this.

[dunphy]

this is one of the best arguments for decrim. i realize it's not quite a libertarian one, but arguing that mj should be TAXED since it is a massive underground cash crop is the pragmatic approach .

it may not meet libertarian purity tests, but if the state could require (for example) a $20 tax stamp per pot plant, vs. wasting money prosecuting and incarcerating, it would be a financial boon and $20 to pay to grow a pot plant is a PITTANCE compared to the yield. heck, most growers these days spend more than that on trash bags to cover their windows!

[Arcaster]

One problem here is that the price of pot would drop significantly when legalized. One plant would not be near as lucrative as it is today, and the $20 stamp would eat up a much larger percentage of the revenue generated by the plant.

[P Brooks]

prosecutors can't change the law. legislators can

As usual, Fearless Fosdick swoops in to do some disingenuous hand-waving.

Those poor, poor prosecutors, trampled into the dirt by evil legislators.
They're only following orders. And their minions in blue (they're just like you and me, only BETTER) are just tiny cogs in a faceless omnipotent apparat of oppression, without volition, unable to resist.

As we all know, prosecutors never ever become legislators, and they never ever lobby for tougher laws and the power to put more people in cages. And cops never arrest little old ladies just because they can.

[Wow]

You need help.

[Virginia]

I posit that jurors are drawn only from lists of active PTA and HOA officers.

[68PercentVotedYes]

Herein lies the problem in Oakland County, MI: The prosecuter thinks she CAN legislate.
"Grandma A" (who incidentally spent 28 yrs. as a police diapatcher and pillar of her local community) was a CARD CARRYING PATIENT AND CAREGIVER under Michigan Medical Marihuana Act Initiated Law 1 of 2008.
The state of MI cashed her checks and sent her a patient and a caregiver card entitling her to grow well over 19 plants under STATE LAW. The prosecuter and the judge would not allow the jury to hear this fact, as THEY decided themselves that she was "in violation" of said law because her front door was unlocked when her home was raided. This should have been presented to the JURY to decide. But she was not allowed to use the law or even mention it. WTF

[hempcheff]

that hit the nail on the head. although the MMMA at the very least states that a patient or caregiver can assert the medical defense in ANY Marihuana prosecution. Unless of course your OC and can make up your own rules. as for a pic of the plants, check the local papers, there is a shot with her now dead husband next to his bed looking them over. Pathetic is the county that would go after a woman that dedicated 28 years of service to them.

[L4F]

Hey, the law is the law. I'm so sick of hearing "ooh, he's so young, don't give him the death penalty" or "ooh, she's so old, let her live under house arrest."

WHAT-EVER! Don't like the law? Change it.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

[Arcaster]

This is a damn good spoof. I don't think even Grego is naive enough to think all laws are moral laws. If this is indeed Grego, may a SWAT team get your address confused with your drug-dealing neighbor's.

[Nick]

Ignorant, mindless, cowardly jury.

The Federal gov't has no powers in this case, except for the egregious use of the commerce clause, thanks to Wickard vs Filburn.