Americans convicted of simple possession of cannabis are set to be able to obtain a pardon, an option Canadians have had since 2019. It remains to be seen whether the American program will be more productive than here, when only 631 citizens obtained one for this offense until now. Critics are calling Canada’s process insufficient, if not a failure, while sentencing data continues to flow freely despite pardons being granted, according to a criminologist expert.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order earlier this month granting pardons to anyone who has been convicted by the federal government of “simple possession” — meaning carrying cannabis with no intent to do so. do the traffic. The amnesty will not benefit the majority of Americans convicted of this offense because they have been sanctioned by different states — not federal.
This American pardon is the mirror decision of the one made in Canada three years ago.
But, since 2019, only 972 Canadians have applied for such a pardon – also called a criminal record suspension. And only 631 of them were accepted; 335 applications were returned because they were incomplete or refused because the applicants were ineligible.
However, Ottawa had estimated at 10,000 the number of people who could take advantage of it, in order to get rid of this obstacle to employment and housing.
In Canada, a pardon removes the criminal record from the Canadian Police Information Center database. Any search conducted there will not reveal that a person has a criminal record or that it has been suspended.
The traditional system of pardons in Canada has been criticized by some as cumbersome and costly.
But in August 2019, in the wake of the legalization of recreational cannabis, a new fast-track procedure came into effect, aimed only at simple possession. It abolishes the fees: no more bill of $631. In the United States, the Department of Justice has not yet specified the process for obtaining a pardon.
An unpopular program
Why is Canada’s cannabis possession pardon program so unpopular?
First, people who have also been convicted of other crimes are not eligible, recalls in an interview the criminologist and professor at the University of Ottawa Line Beauchesne, who specializes in particular in drug-related issues.
For others, the criminal record does not put up an obstacle in their life: if they have a job and a home, they do not see the point of applying for a pardon.
But there is also this problem according to her: obtaining forgiveness will not erase all traces of the condemnation. Ottawa may well remove it from the federal registers, but it is likely to remain on a host of security agency sites that offer criminal background check services to businesses, employers and future landlords, she points out.
The Americans “sweep our databases” and drink in the information found there. Citizens aware of this situation do not see the point of taking the steps. At least the feds were “honest” and never promised the convictions would be “erased,” she said.
As for certain communities, particularly Aboriginal ones, which are less well served by legal services, it is possible that their members are not informed of the possibility of applying for a pardon free of charge.
It’s a fail
Abby Deshman, director of the criminal justice program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, is tougher on the pardon program introduced for simple possession of cannabis.
“It’s a failure,” she laments.
Its unpopularity indicates that the problem is not just a question of delays and costs: the process is cumbersome since it requires citizens to obtain evidence at the police station and courthouse and to fill out forms. “All the work is on their shoulders,” says M.me Deshman.
She believes that the pardon should be automatic, that is to say that the federal government should withdraw all convictions for simple possession, without steps by the convicted persons.
Professor Beauchesne agrees: American states have done this, she notes, such as Colorado, Maryland and Massachusetts.
This may soon be a reality, underlines Mme Deshman, noting that Bill C-5, currently before the Senate, has been amended for this purpose. The final vote has not yet taken place.
According to Professor Beauchesne, Ottawa should also have given offenders the option of getting rid of all cannabis-related convictions, such as having more than four plants on their balcony – as long as there was no of violent acts.
It would have been more consistent, she said.