Mar 16, 2008 - 04:05:30 CDT
Bill Clinton puffed on a joint but never inhaled. He didn't have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, either.Some will suggest I am not respectful, but I am only repeating the former president's words. To show this is not a partisan political rant, I will acknowledge the words of our Republican commander-in-chief have been less than eloquent - downright unintelligible at times. But out of a deep respect for readers, I will not repeat President Bush's flubs.
I use those examples, however, to illustrate the power and abuse of words. Words, and how they are used or spoken, can make or break people and ideas.
President Clinton wagged his finger at the camera (actually at America) while his denial about Monica was being filmed. He seemed sincere, as he did when he talked about not inhaling. Millions of people believed him, both times. I thought both word games were sadly laughable, as I have many times when President Bush has opened his mouth.
It is nothing more than word silliness. Last week, I was reminded of such when I read a viewpoint in Time magazine. It was a controversial suggestion of how to end the war on drugs by the writers of the HBO series, "The Wire," which focused on inner-city life and its drug wars.
While we worry about drugs on the Prairie, the intensity isn't quite the same as it is in Baltimore, the site of "The Wire," or other major metro cities, such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago or Miami.
Nonetheless, I couldn't agree more with their main premise when the authors wrote the following: "... this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning cities into free-fire zones." They went on to cite the latest Pew statistics that one out of every 100 adults is in prison, and one in 15 black men over 18 is incarcerated. There is tragedy in the truth that the United States is the world's leader in rate of imprisonment.
But the power of the author's words soon became silly.
"If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. ... No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens."
Jury nullification, they said, is "American dissent" and "legitimate protest." They made it clear they felt readers should ponder, even follow, their lead.
Wow - silly. Not exactly truth, justice and the American way, but more like a call for anarchy.
Government is far from perfect, and I am a regular critic and watchdog in my chosen profession. Many Americans no doubt would agree the court system could use some change, if in nothing else then the often unequal sentencing of the less fortunate who don't have the means to "fight the system." Many Americans would probably even march in peaceful protest to affect change.
But does anyone really think political and social disorder, confusion and chaos, or jury nullification of this kind in the courts is the first step in winning the drug wars? How simple and silly is that?
Jury nullification is generally referenced as being linked to injustice in the law. But there is no injustice in the laws as they are written toward illegal drug users and sellers. The injustice is in a society - our society - that turns its back on the have-nots in many ways, which whether you like it or not, can have significant impact on who uses and sells drugs.
Reform is needed, maybe even in the laws of the land, but run-away juries are naive and silly to think they can take matters into their own hands, pay no attention to current law and solve the problem.
Hollywood writers and celebrities are like everyone else when it comes to opinions. They should be considered, but there is nothing that makes them special. It's hard to imagine why a national news magazine like Time allowed itself to be used as a bully pulpit for would-be preachers offering and encouraging a serious breach of our system of trial by jury? Drug users and dealers overcrowding prisons isn't an appropriate lynchpin for radical jury reform?
Any hope of any solution has to start much earlier. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise to the writers of "The Wire" - or Time magazine - that there are reasons why good people do bad things, like getting hooked on illegal drugs and doing anything to medicate their emotional and addictive pain.
But those involved in jury nullification movements top this cause and will only become enablers.
(You can reach Editor John Irby at 250-8266 or john.irby@bismarcktribune.com and go to www.bismarcktribune.com/blog/?w=thepaper&e_id=2671/ to read his blog.)
David wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:12 PM:
The soap box is gone, taken over by massive media conglomorates and the FCC and relegated to "Free Speech Zones". The ballot box is a joke. The candidates are all the same and pushing the same agenda, one world government. The jury box is the last place for non-violent people to make a stand against an unjust government. Incase you haven't figured it out, it isn't just the "have nots" that are doing drugs. Americans are doing drugs. Period, end of story. Some of them are legal like Prozac, Oxycotin and whatever else Pfizer or Merik pushes. Some are illegal, like marijuana... a plant that grows out of the ground and was given to us by God. "
Clay S. Conrad wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:01 AM:
When a juror believes a conviction would be unjust, after seeing all the facts, law, and individual circumstances of a Defendant and his family, then that juror may vote "not guilty." Whether a conviction would be just in that case or not is not John Irby's to decide -- unless he is on the jury. Each juror must decide for themselves, and where twelve jurors unanimously agree a conviction would not be just, it is enormously arrogant for someone who has not heard what the jurors heard to declare them wrong.
"
Tommy Boy wrote on Mar 16, 2008 8:35 PM:
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.