Search

There has been a recent push to legalise marijuana use, possession, and trade at state and federal levels in the United States. The Marijuana Justice Act 2017 proposes a reinvestment fund to remediate harms suffered by minority communities from the unequal enforcement of criminal drug offences. Are practices like the 'reinvestment fund' aligned with the theoretical foundations of restorative justice? Restorative justice has often been advanced by its proponents as a major development in criminological thinking and as an alternative to retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. On that basis, the emergence of restorative justice practices that work within the traditional criminal justice system challenges the existence of restorative justice as a separate penal measure. The paper defends the Unified Theory of Punishment, which adopts a unique view of restorative justice. It rejects theoretical approaches that advocate for a pure theory of restorative justice and/or penal abolition. Restorative justice should be integral to any criminal justice model, and retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation can work under one framework. Proposals set by the Marijuana Justice Act 2017 are advantageously in line with the Unified Theory of Punishment's understanding of crime and punishment, and evidense the ability of restorative justice to effectively address the repercussions of past serious criminal offences on members of the community. The application of restorative justice to legalisation processes is unique and advances knowledge of restorative thought within a legislative context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarises the Sentencing Council's proposed revision of its Drug Offences Definitive Guideline (Consultation Paper, January 2020). The article discusses the basis on which "harm " is assessed under the guideline and it identifies matters which, given the complexity of UK drug laws and social behaviours with respect to drugs, expose the challenges of formulating a guideline that is apt in every case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Colombia, a person caught in possession of an illicit substance is not judicially sanctioned as long as the quantity does not exceed the maximum allowable amounts. Given that the public is divided on the appropriateness of this policy, an examination of the various public positions was undertaken.Method: A convenience sample of 302 adults were presented with 48 vignettes depicting a situation of everyday life easily recognizable by all in Colombia; that of a male person who is apprehended in the street by the police because he is suspected of illicit trafficking. These vignettes were created by orthogonal variation of four factors: Type of substance, amount of substance, type of charge against the offender, and offender's age.Results: Through cluster analysis, six qualitatively different positions were found. These positions corresponded to three distinct, classical philosophies (a) a libertarian, free-market philosophy - punishment should never be extremely severe because the trade in psychotropic substances is a trade like any other (6%), (b) a moralistic, conservative philosophy - punishment should always be extremely severe except perhaps in certain cases (52%), and (c) a progressive, human rights-inspired philosophy - punishment should always be proportional to the seriousness of the facts (42%).Conclusion: Half of Colombian people supported a control policy according to which the use of psychotropic substances is considered profoundly immoral. Most of the other segment of the population express views similar to those of international organizations. It is therefore desirable that legislators rely on progressive international legislation to support domestic policies that are not strictly moralistic and conservative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: in recent years, many Asian countries have witnessed an intensification in populist discourses identifying the death penalty as a central tool of drug control, with public opinion surveys referred to as invaluable evidence of public support for the death penalty. This paper will address the claim that the public supports capital punishment, and the role of surveys in shaping this discourse.Methods: review of thirty-nine public opinion surveys on the death penalty carried out in five Asian countries which retain the death penalty for drugs or are considering re-introducing it. The review was conducted by analysing and comparing design, methodology, findings, and the relationship between these elements.Results: all but two surveys recorded a majoritarian support for the death penalty, driven by beliefs in (a) deterrent effect of the death penalty, and (b) perfect justice - both disproven. Complex surveys found a low intensity of support, and a limited interest and knowledge by the public in capital punishment. Support for capital punishment is lower for drug offences specifically, and it decreases significantly when expressed with reference to real-life cases. Limited data suggest that the public in the focus countries has reservations on the effectiveness of the death penalty to reduce drug offences, and prefers a discretionary system of punishment. The analysis also revealed correlations between the framing of survey questions and their findings.Conclusion: Public opinion surveys conducted in China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand suggest that the public knows little and has little interest in the death penalty. Although majoritarian, its support is based on a faulty understanding of key facts related to capital punishment, and an increase in knowledge is correlated to a decrease in support. More rigorous polling exercises demonstrate that public support for capital punishment - both in general and for drug offences specifically - is instinctive, abstract, elastic, and contextual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]