Sherrif wants to charge Michael Phelps

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They can charge them for owning drug parafernalia and any stash they find. Generally that's the charge anyway, rather than actually catching anyone in the act.

Yes, but they have to find it in his possession. You can't charge someone for a crime based solely on a picture. it's circumstantial.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

You can't charge someone for a crime based solely on a picture. it's circumstantial.

Phelps has NOT been charged as of RFN.

Link

COLUMBIA -- Even if a South Carolina sheriff is successful in building a marijuana case against swimming superstar Michael Phelps, it might be hard to make the charges stick, defense attorneys say.

The case took a turn Thursday when lawyers for two people said their clients were among eight arrested last week and questioned at length about the November party near the University of South Carolina where Phelps was photographed smoking from a marijuana pipe. At the time, the men were renters at the house.

[richlevy]

I think if you want to have a law changed, the best way to do it is to be fanatically overzealous in it's enforcement.

If they'd busted GWB and his well connected friends and they'd faced up to 18 months in jail back in the 80's, Texas would have the loosest drug laws in the country by now.

If you consider that it cost $20-30,000 a year for each prisoner, as a taxpayer you have to ask "Is it worth it to me to spend that much to keep this guy off of the street". For rapists and murders, the answer is yes. For some guy with a big bag of pot? "No".

Since even minor drug arrests count towards "three strikes", you're building a large prison population composed of people who were not well connected enough or wealthy enough to aggressively resist conviction.

So, get busted for possession 3 times and it's 25-to-life in California. This is why California has the most expensive and overcrowded prison system in the country. From a liberal and libertarian point of view, this does not make any sense. The courts have already ruled on overcrowding, and many non-violent offenders will be released. If I told the average citizen that a state was adding hundreds of bureaucrats a day at 20-30K, they'd be outraged. But everyone equates more people in jail as being safer.

For marijuana, this is not the case.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I think if you want to have a law changed, the best way to do it is to be fanatically overzealous in it's enforcement.

If they'd busted GWB and his well connected friends and they'd faced up to 18 months in jail back in the 80's, Texas would have the loosest drug laws in the country by now.

If you consider that it cost $20-30,000 a year for each prisoner, as a taxpayer you have to ask "Is it worth it to me to spend that much to keep this guy off of the street". For rapists and murders, the answer is yes. For some guy with a big bag of pot? "No".

Since even minor drug arrests count towards "three strikes", you're building a large prison population composed of people who were not well connected enough or wealthy enough to aggressively resist conviction.

So, get busted for possession 3 times and it's 25-to-life in California. This is why California has the most expensive and overcrowded prison system in the country. From a liberal and libertarian point of view, this does not make any sense. The courts have already ruled on overcrowding, and many non-violent offenders will be released. If I told the average citizen that a state was adding hundreds of bureaucrats a day at 20-30K, they'd be outraged. But everyone equates more people in jail as being safer.

For marijuana, this is not the case.

California's jails are SO overcrowded right now (they are at double capacity or something), they might have to let out almost 40,000 prisoners soon. What do you want to bet they let out dangerous criminals and keep the druggies in? Because of mandatory sentences. It's friggin' ridicuolous.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Phelps has NOT been charged as of RFN.

Link

No, but the sheriff had said he wanted to arrest him. Now I understand he has recanted.

Those other people who were arrested, were they caught with something? Because again, you can't charge someone with a crime based on a picture. Well you can try, but it would be thrown out of court.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

No, but the sheriff had said he wanted to arrest him. Now I understand he has recanted.

Those other people who were arrested, were they caught with something? Because again, you can't charge someone with a crime based on a picture. Well you can try, but it would be thrown out of court.

He recanted because the whole case would have to have been built on anecdotal evidence, and they couldn't find enough rats.

Poor sheriff...