Pubdate: Wed, 30 Dec 2015
Source: Observer, The (CN ON)
Copyright: 2015, Sarnia Observer
Contact: http://www.theobserver.ca/letters
Website: http://www.theobserver.ca
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1676
Page: A4

NO CONVICT AMNESTY WITH CHANGE IN POT LAW

When someone is charged with a crime, the laws in place at the time of
the offence dictate how that individual will be punished if convicted.
The exception is outlined in Section 11(i) of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, which states: "Any person charged with an offence has
the right . . . if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment
for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the
time of sentencing to the benefit of the lesser punishment."

The Charter says nothing about granting amnesty to a convicted
individual whose offence later ceases to be a crime. That's why, if
marijuana is legalized in Canada, the legislation should not come with
an amendment that allows all those previously convicted of possession
of marijuana to be pardoned and have their criminal records expunged.

The number of Canadians charged with possession each year runs into
the tens of thousands. Pardons would have to extend not just to the
citizen caught with a small amount, but to notorious suppliers and
dealers as well.

Proponents of legalization argue a marijuana possession conviction can
play havoc with an individual's life, including gaining employment and
travelling across the border into the U.S. That's unpleasant, but
these are adults who knew they were breaking the law. They should face
the consequences of their behaviour.

When asked about the possibility of pardons, Justice Minister Jody
Wilson-Raybould remained vague, but dropped one hint that would
suggest she may be considering it. "We will certainly look to have
more to say about how we're going to move forward. But that includes
actually having conversations . . . with different levels of
government and ensuring we speak to Canadians who have been impacted."

Canadians "who have been impacted" will no doubt speak up with one
voice demanding amnesty.

A good precedent for handling a change in the law was set with the
faint hope clause, which allowed prisoners with life sentences to
apply for parole after 15 years behind bars, 10 years ahead of
schedule. That clause was repealed in 2011, but those who had been
imprisoned before then are still eligible to apply, even though the
clause no longer exists. Anyone sentenced to life after the repeal is
not eligible. What was in force previously stayed in force when the
law changed.

The federal government should not equate existing marijuana
convictions to innocence.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt