Suetaz

Pa. Judge's Marijuana Decisions Reversed

By MARK SCOLFORO, Associated Press Writer | Yahoo! News | July 21, 2004

HARRISBURG, Pa. - The state Superior Court has reversed a judge's blanket policy of dismissing minor marijuana possession cases because he believes the charges are too insignificant to merit prosecution.

In a pair of decisions filed Wednesday, a three-judge panel sent back to Philadelphia Common Pleas Court two juvenile cases that Judge Robert J. Rebstock had dismissed. They will be assigned to a different judge.

[Suetaznote: For one smart judge there are three dumber ones that can't see that prohibition doesn't work, especially with teenagers. They also don't have a problem with wasting court time and money dealing with something that would be best left to a counselor rather than a court of law. Of course, this is in the state that prosecuted Tommy Chong. Pennsylvania is one of the two states that has the paraphernalia laws. They already wasted a lot of time and money on that case.]

"Not only did the trial judge fail to consider the protection of the public, he gave no consideration to (the defendant's) individual need for treatment, supervision, rehabilitation or welfare. The trial judge is taking a 'one-size-fits-all' approach," wrote Superior Court Judge Debra M. Todd.

In a December 2002 case, the defendant possessed less than a gram of marijuana, worth $20. In the other case, the defendant was charged in September 2002 with possession of marijuana but lab tests showed cocaine was also present. Both were 16-year-old boys.

In one instance, the judge told the court: "Little bags of marijuana, I'm not trying those cases."

Cathie Abookire, spokeswoman for the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, said Wednesday that prosecutors were gratified by the appellate ruling and said they believed there was no basis for Rebstock's decisions.

"It has been and remains illegal for juveniles to possess marijuana," she said.

Rebstock did not immediately return a phone message.


___

Superior Court rulings:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost.../A07014_04.pdf

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost.../A07015_04.pdf

__________________

DarkLance

My dear lord.... Who is this woman? I want her mailing address. This is crazy, an absolute waste of tax payer money. How does society benefit from retrying these kids? WTF is going on...

__________________
i'm fighting the war on drugs

HappyMan

THe Judge has to try those cases, she doesn't have a choice. It is her job, she took a oath that she would uphold the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, EVEN ones she disagrees with. This is why we have the seperation of powers in the U.S. so Judge can't go an makeup law as they sit fit.

If she doesn't want to try any criminal case she should resign.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

Hiz Highness

You see no room for the use of common sense in the justice system? Does it all have to be blind allegience? If a United States judge can't say "Look, this is a waste of the taxpayers time and money. I'm not going to try this case" who can?

-HH

HappyMan

Not Judges. If that were the case we would have judge refuse to hear cases on ANYTHING, from Child Rape to white collar criminals with loose cash. It opens the system to rampant corruption and undercutts the seperation of the powers of governence.

Hiz Highness

Let me make sure I understand this . . . you think if we allow a judge to refuse to hear a misdemeanor case of marijuana possession then soon we'll have judges refusing to hear felony child rape cases?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.

The system is already corrupt. The wealthy and powerful enjoy one set of laws while the rest of us enjoy another set. The differences are further broken down as poor minorities overall suffer under a stricter set of penalties than poor whites. The system is biased, racist, and needs to be overhauled.

-HH

790473894739

I'm going to have to agry with Hiz on this one. Its insane to beleive that because a judge is alowed to dismiss minor marijuana charges that soon judges will dismiss child rape cases... I don't even know why child rape poped into your mind. Omg marijuana should be legal, child rape obviouslly shouldn't. Its just what is, and isn't right.

WNB

Happyman is right. The judge didn't even cite a legally viable reason to dismiss the cases, which means he was intentionally ignoring the law. Judges shouldn't do that. Even if you do like this particular judge's actions on this particular issue, this would have set a bad precident had he been allowed to go through with dismissing the cases.

__________________
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Suetaz

There is a big difference between simple marijuana possession and child rape. Judge Rebstock has enough common sense to see that juveniles don't belong in court for marijuana use. You can't possibly compare that to rape of any kind. I can't see any judge in their right mind refusing to try a rape case or any other because they don't feel like hearing it. A judge should be able to use some discretion so the court's time isn't wasted hearing cases that don't belong in a court room in the first place.

WNB

Good for him, but unfortunately that isn't his decision to make. The most he should do is vocally support marijuana law reform and give the lightest possible sentences to people convicted of marijuana offenses. Anything else undermines any shred of credability the justice system may have left.

Well, actually judges don't get to dismiss cases unless there is a legally viable reason to do so, which this article suggests there was not. If he can do this today, tomarrow we could easily have all sorts of judges dismissing all sorts of charges they personally don't agree with. This is not a good thing.