Pubdate: Thu, 25 May 2000 Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times Contact: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053 Fax: (213) 237-4712 Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/ Author: Ted Brown Note: Ted Brown is the Libertarian Party candidate in the 27th Congressional District. Note: this article was also published in the Pasadena Weekly LET THE PEOPLE RULE FOR A CHANGE A new record was set in February: There are now 2 million Americans in jails and prisons throughout the country. This is up from only 200,000 in 1970. Fewer than one third of the prisoners have been convicted of violent crimes. Indeed, 400,000 of these people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses, another 750,000 for other victimless crimes. The $40-billion-a-year expense is staggering enough, but this doesn't take into account the lives ruined by overzealous prosecutors doing the bidding of misinformed and pandering legislators. It's important to note that the best-known candidates for Congress in our area are former prosecutors. U.S. Rep. James Rogan (R-Montrose) was a county prosecutor and local judge; state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) was a federal prosecutor. Instead of more prosecutors in Congress, we need representatives who will defend peoples' liberties. There are too many laws in this country. Whenever any problem (real or imaginary) develops, politicians start proposing new legislation. That's how we've gotten some terribly draconian laws (named after Draco, an ancient Greek official who decreed the death penalty for most every offense). It's time to repeal laws, not pass new ones. In the past, judges applied their wisdom and looked at the circumstances of each defendant before passing sentence. Now there are often mandatory minimum sentences for certain crimes, making judges seem useless. This is especially true for nonviolent drug offenses, some of which should not even be illegal. Juries have been known to convict people of seemingly minor offenses and then to be shocked when they find out the extremely harsh sentences that are imposed. We must get rid of mandatory minimums. Three-strike laws are a good idea in theory. Most people thought they were voting to take violent felons like murderers, rapists and armed robbers off the streets. Yet the third strike can be any felony. And today, with our prosecutor-legislators, just about anything can be a felony. That's why our courts have been imposing 25-to-life sentences for marijuana possession, parole violations, petty theft (like swiping a slice of pizza) and other minor offenses. The punishment should fit the crime. Three-strike laws must be changed to include only a specific list of violent offenses. Then there's the death penalty. Whether one favors it or not, it's clear that a number of innocent people have been executed. Even the conservative Republican governor of Illinois, George Ryan, suspended executions in that state when he saw how many death row inmates had been freed because they weren't guilty. A lot of defendants don't have fair trials with good legal representation. There is no way to undo an execution. Life in prison without parole is a perfectly sensible alternative that still protects society but allows mistakes to be corrected later. Unfortunately, Americans overwhelmingly favor the death penalty. Thus, at the very least, we must pass proposed legislation by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) that would allow a final DNA test to let death row inmates prove their innocence if they can. Currently, 48 states don't allow such tests. That has to change. The court system needs to be reformed at both the state and federal level. The jury selection process, or voir dire, actually amounts to jury tampering on the part of both the prosecution and defense. The first 12 jurors who don't know the parties involved and who have no financial stake in the outcome of the case should be seated, with no other questions asked. This is the only way to have a true cross-section of the community. In common law, jurors always had the right to judge the law itself, as well as the facts in the case. This is known as "jury nullification." Jurors often found defendants not guilty if they disliked the law in question or felt it was unjustly applied. In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges don't have to tell jurors about this right, so none of them do. Judges coerce juries into guilty verdicts by telling them only the black and white part of the law, not allowing jurors to use their own common sense. Jurors need to be told of their right to judge the law. Another reform I support would allow jurors to set the sentence in every case, up to the maximum allowed by law. It's likely that child molesters and other violent criminals would receive longer sentences, and those charged with "victimless crimes" would get much lighter sentences. After all, if jurors are considered capable of choosing life or death in capital cases, or damages in civil cases, why aren't they capable of choosing probation, 5 years, 10 years or another appropriate sentence in other criminal cases? Our current leaders don't want any of these reforms because power would go back to the people. Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, Sacramento and our local city halls all want more power over us. That's why we need to elect representatives with a different point of view - a Libertarian point of view - before it's too late. - --- MAP posted-by: Thunder