The Wire's War on the Drug War
This article escaped my attention but it was an op-ed published in Time magazine in the March 5 issue. Penned by Simon, Burns and the show's trio of mystery novelists-cum-screenwriters - Richard Price, Dennis Lehane and George Pelecanos - the piece urges jury nullification as a form of civil disobedience towards the flawed drug war.
In their own words, "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."
Now, I really, really admire these guys and hope that I can have half as great a writing career as they've had; however I can't say that I agree with this approach. It smacks of nihilism: the drug war is bad so we're going to sabotage it. We're going to undermine the bedrock of the court system - citizens arriving at objective decisions on a jury by listening to presented evidence - to make a point. It's just an arms-crossed "pooey" gesture that does not contribute to any real lasting solution.
Those interested in proposed substantive changes in drug policy should visit the Drug Policy Alliance's web page. Here's a link to their "What's Wrong with the Drug War" page that goes into the issues deeply. As far as I know, they're the preeminent organization creating policy alternatives to the current mess.
All right, that's all for blogging this week. If anybody wants me I'll be at Joshua Tree.
This article escaped my attention but it was an op-ed published in Time magazine in the March 5 issue. Penned by Simon, Burns and the show's trio of mystery novelists-cum-screenwriters - Richard Price, Dennis Lehane and George Pelecanos - the piece urges jury nullification as a form of civil disobedience towards the flawed drug war.
In their own words, "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."
Now, I really, really admire these guys and hope that I can have half as great a writing career as they've had; however I can't say that I agree with this approach. It smacks of nihilism: the drug war is bad so we're going to sabotage it. We're going to undermine the bedrock of the court system - citizens arriving at objective decisions on a jury by listening to presented evidence - to make a point. It's just an arms-crossed "pooey" gesture that does not contribute to any real lasting solution.
Those interested in proposed substantive changes in drug policy should visit the Drug Policy Alliance's web page. Here's a link to their "What's Wrong with the Drug War" page that goes into the issues deeply. As far as I know, they're the preeminent organization creating policy alternatives to the current mess.
All right, that's all for blogging this week. If anybody wants me I'll be at Joshua Tree.
posted by Andy Sywak at 11:08 AM
1 Comments:
From where do you decide that the bedrock of the court system is "citizens arriving at objective decisions on a jury by listening to presented evidence?" This is the old myth that jurors consider only questions of fact: it is not, and has never been true.
Jury nullification predates Magna Charta. It is an essential means by which the citizens can control, and limit the power of, government. Far from nihilism, it does no more than give jurors their fair measure of the discretion cops, judges and prosecutors use every day: to act in the interests of justice.
Post a Comment
<< Home