The following was shared by Trey via CopBlock.org’s submit page.
I was arrested for marijuana – half a blunt to be exact. It’s a felony because it was within 1000 feet of a school. It’s a felony in Oklahoma, no matter the amount or if it’s your first charge, any drug within 2000 feet of a school is a felony. This is my first offense ever. I have no criminal record, and I have an attorney. The state already offered me two years deferred, felony charge. I didn’t want it because it’s a felony; I told the state I won’t take a plea unless it’s a misdemeanor. I also offered the state twenty days in jail, two year deferred misdemeanor charge, if the DA would lower the charge. He said no and that if I didn’t take the felony two years deferred, he’d have the judge sentence me to more then two years deferred. My question is, if I don’t take the deal and say I want to go to trial, would the DA really want to go to trial over half a blunt of marijuana? If I bluff him, will the state be more likely to drop it down to a lower misdemeanor possession charge? I need advice.
Whether or not taking a plea deal is your best option can be a tough decision. Unfortunately, you can never be sure of the way your decision to take or decline a plea deal will play out in the courtroom; rarely do logic and reason triumph in the court of man-made law. There are many activists who encourage people not to take a plea deal when charged with a so-called “crime” that lacks a victim. The general idea is that if enough people Don’t Take The Plea, it will clog the system and become a financial burden, forcing ‘the state’ to eventually choose between pursuing individuals who have caused harm to another and individuals whose actions have no victim. In some cases, an argument can be made that taking a plea deal is best in the interest of one’s self-preservation.
What are your thoughts on whether a person charged with a victimless crime ought to take a plea deal? What advice would you give Trey?