Illinois Governor Strikes Again

[Foxy Brown]

All marijuana convictions (without violence) will be automatically expunged. Also, convictions for dealing pot will be expunged—not automatically, but it will be possible. Frankly, this really irks me. Good police work is just erased because “pot convictions are too burdensome.”

I feel like it’s time to move.

Link (https://www.policeone.com/drug-interdiction-narcotics/articles/484818006-group-to-help-chicago-clear-pot-arrests-during-legalization/?utm_source=PoliceOne+Member+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cb9e54e76d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_27_09_28&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ca044a84ea-cb9e54e76d-41915707)

[LittleLebowski]

I read your headline and wondered if yet another IL governor was going to jail.

[Rex G]

I read your headline and wondered if yet another IL governor was going to jail.

Same here. “Illinois governor” has become a meme, kinda like “Florida man.”

[LittleLebowski]

41829

[RevolverRob]

Not surprising. With pending legalization of recreational marijuana in the state it doesn’t make sense to continue to criminalize individuals whose crimes are no longer crimes.

IL already has substantial prison overcrowding and limited funds. If they can’t extract fines from these folks - time to let them go.

[blues]

Not surprising. With pending legalization of recreational marijuana in the state it doesn’t make sense to continue to criminalize individuals whose crimes are no longer crimes.

IL already has substantial prison overcrowding and limited funds. If they can’t extract fines from these folks - time to let them go.

I think Jesse Smollett should be the next governor of IL. Seems fitting under the circumstances.

[ralph]

I think Jesse Smollett should be the next governor of IL. Seems fitting under the circumstances.

Well, when you think about it, you really could'nt do any worse....

[Foxy Brown]

I read your headline and wondered if yet another IL governor was going to jail.

He’s one to watch! I will not be surprised in the least if corruption charges are eventually filed against him!

[RevolverRob]

I think Jesse Smollett should be the next governor of IL. Seems fitting under the circumstances.

True.

Tangential, but there is now a state Assistant AG investigating the Cook County DA for how it handled the Smollett case. Could include new charges for Smollett and maybe even censure for the DA’s office. I won’t hold my breath for justice in Chicago, but you never know.


He’s one to watch! I will not be surprised in the least if corruption charges are eventually filed against him!

No way.

The Pritzker Family are like the Kennedys of Illinois. Chances of JB getting charges and convicted are very slim. He has way too much money compared to Blago and many friends in many high places.

What to watch will be to watch JB throwing his hat in the 2024 POTUS elections if a Democrat doesn’t win 2020.

[HeavyDuty]

I’ll be soooo glad when I have this state in my rear view mirror next year...

[the Schwartz]

I’ll be soooo glad when I have this state in my rear view mirror next year...

You are right. You cannot leave rapidly enough. My family left Chicago three decades ago and life is great! Sure, I miss some things (like Wrigley Field and some of our favorite downtown eateries), but we can always drive through for a brief revisit without self-inflicting the rest of the mess that is Illinois upon ourselves.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Let's say that your state passes a magazine capacity limit and somehow thousands of gun owners get busted (granted this is a fantasy of some). The citizens revolt and elect a governor opposed to such. The legislature still won't undo the ban, so the gov pardons all. You ok with that?

It depends on your view of the violation. I read TX had 40,000 marijuana possession arrests in the recent reporting period. Are those worth it for minor possession?

My point, choose your liberty to infringe depending on the extremes of the crappy political dichotomy of today.

[Foxy Brown]

Not surprising. With pending legalization of recreational marijuana in the state it doesn’t make sense to continue to criminalize individuals whose crimes are no longer crimes.

IL already has substantial prison overcrowding and limited funds. If they can’t extract fines from these folks - time to let them go.

It's not quite like that. This would be automatic expungements from people already convicted. Weed has been decriminalized for a few years already so there aren't people currently in jail for possession of 1 oz. of weed. This dates back indefinitely based on what is written in the article.

I do have an issue with expunging the record of people dealing up to 500 grams. In my experience as a LEO, people who deal weed also deal other drugs. So, now we are going to remove history of criminal behavior (automatically) from ...criminals? (Granted, I did not meet every dealer in my jurisdiction, but, that has been my experience.)

I don't agree with automatically expunging records of people who violated the law in the past. Just because some arbitrary date and quantity, as determined by the legislators, is now suddenly legal does not mean those people should have the consequences of breaking the law removed. The people knowingly committed that crime back then. Their records should reflect what they knowingly did at that time. Illinois already has an expungement process in place that the individual needs to initiate. I do take issue with just blindly erasing all these records without considering the history of the person. It's the automatic expungement that bothers me.

[Foxy Brown]

Let's say that your state passes a magazine capacity limit and somehow thousands of gun owners get busted (granted this is a fantasy of some). The citizens revolt and elect a governor opposed to such. The legislature still won't undo the ban, so the gov pardons all. You ok with that?

It depends on your view of the violation. I read TX had 40,000 marijuana possession arrests in the recent reporting period. Are those worth it for minor possession?

My point, choose your liberty to infringe depending on the extremes of the crappy political dichotomy of today.

This is an absolutely ludicrous analogy. I am going to limit my response to simply saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't say the ability of people to smoke weed shall not be infringed. Marijuana has been illegal (depending on which state one resided) since about the turn of the 20th century. Smoking weed is not a liberty.

[45dotACP]

Out of idle curiosity, would these expungements also release on to the street, people who have been dealing heroin or meth or are those charged separately?

Because I might have concerns with something like that.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Foxy Brown]

45 - I can speak to outside of Cook County/Chicago. In most counties, those are charged separately. But, in many cases, plea deals are made. What the terms of those deals are....that's case by case.

Within Cook (crook) county....it's anyone's guess, quite frankly. Literally, murder is not 'that big of a deal' if one were to look only at the charging/actual sentencing for people convicted....(ignore the actual time served in that consideration, too).

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is an absolutely ludicrous analogy. I am going to limit my response to simply saying that the Bill of Rights doesn't say the ability of people to smoke weed shall not be infringed. Marijuana has been illegal (depending on which state one resided) since about the turn of the 20th century. Smoking weed is not a liberty.

The analogy is ludicrous only to those with an authoritarian mind set. The right to hold high cap mags as not been determined to be protected by the 2nd Amend. by SCOTUS. The banning of them as been part of Congressional and State legislation over the years and supported by state and lower Federal courts many times. I guess you missed that.

Thus, a governor who righteously decided to nullify what he or she thought as a ludicrous restriction of liberty in the firearms realm is relevant. State actions to limit federal infringement of liberty is not unknown. States took action against the ludicrous Fugitive slave laws.

If one thinks that infringement of the right have use marijuana is a ludicrous blow against personal liberty, the action is reasonable. What is a liberty is determined by social consensus, you may have missed that. The right to inter-racial marriage wasn't in the BOR, but found to exist as societal norms changed. I can quote Senators who thought they had a God Given agenda to forbid that and even have a Constitutional amendment to codify it.

The Bill of Rights - its limits are determined by SCOTUS, it seems nowadays. I do respect those who will act against liberty and do not respect those of an authoritarian mindset that want to limit our rights, God Given or determined by reasonable discussion among enlightened human beings to be good for society. Otherwise the concepts of rights is ludicrous.

[mmc45414]

I wouldn't have a problem if plea bargaining wasn't part of the landscape. Who knows what charges might have been harder to make stick that may have been dropped for people that took a deal on the weed conviction. There is a difference between people selling weed and people illegally carrying a gun while they sell weed, but I think the weapons charges frequently are harder to get convictions and get dealt away.

[Foxy Brown]

The analogy is ludicrous only to those with an authoritarian mind set. The right to hold high cap mags as not been determined to be protected by the 2nd Amend. by SCOTUS. The banning of them as been part of Congressional and State legislation over the years and supported by state and lower Federal courts many times. I guess you missed that.

Thus, a governor who righteously decided to nullify what he or she thought as a ludicrous restriction of liberty in the firearms realm is relevant. State actions to limit federal infringement of liberty is not unknown. States took action against the ludicrous Fugitive slave laws.

If one thinks that infringement of the right have use marijuana is a ludicrous blow against personal liberty, the action is reasonable. What is a liberty is determined by social consensus, you may have missed that. The right to inter-racial marriage wasn't in the BOR, but found to exist as societal norms changed. I can quote Senators who thought they had a God Given agenda to forbid that and even have a Constitutional amendment to codify it.

The Bill of Rights - its limits are determined by SCOTUS, it seems nowadays. I do respect those who will act against liberty and do not respect those of an authoritarian mindset that want to limit our rights, God Given or determined by reasonable discussion among enlightened human beings to be good for society. Otherwise the concepts of rights is ludicrous.

Yet again, you fail with analogies. Attempting to codify social perception (your example of inter-racial marriage) and actually passing a bill that legalizes something are apples an oranges. But, I guess you missed that.

Liberty is not determined by social consensus. That's just simply not true and such a silly, broad sweeping statement it's not worth any more of my time. But, I guess you missed that.

Calling me of all people authoritarian without knowing my background or history is amusing. Have the floor from here on, pal. Pontificate all you want with your psuedo-philosophical nonsense. I am not going to engage you any further on this post.

[Foxy Brown]

mmc, what you point out is one of my issues with automatically expunging all of these convictions. Especially in Chicago, gun crimes are not reliably or consistently prosecuted. It's an ongoing frustration for Chicago coppers. I go back to the fact that an expungement process for Illinois has already been established. The (allegedly) poor soul who could not get a student loan, or a job, or (insert here) due to a "minor" weed conviction already has recourse to address his/her record. That is the argument made by the crooked kim foxx for supporting this action. ....except that the system was already set up to repair those who paid their dues for crime.