Pubdate: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Source: Boston Herald (MA)
Copyright: 2012 The Boston Herald, Inc
Contact:  http://news.bostonherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/53
Note: Prints only very short LTEs.
Author: Christopher Ott
Note: Christopher Ott is communications director for the ACLU of Massachusetts.
Page: 31

LAB WOES CALL FOR BREAK FROM DRUG WAR SCRIPT

It's going to take fresh thinking to address the scandal at the state 
drug lab without making Massachusetts budget woes even worse. 
Unfortunately, however, most of what we're seeing so far is the exact 
opposite: a business-as-usual approach, with an enormous (and 
growing) price tag.

As soon as the state drug lab scandal broke, it became clear that the 
cost of reexamining thousands of cases would be huge. Early estimates 
caused sticker shock with numbers like $30 million or $50 million, to 
pay for courts, prosecutors, and public defenders to re-try thousands 
of cases based on tainted evidence.

More recently, the Committee for Public Counsel Services has 
estimated that handling the scandal could cost as much as $332 
million. Gov. Deval Patrick has questioned that figure, but would 
anyone really be surprised if costs keep creeping higher?

There is never a good time for a fiasco like this, but now is 
particularly challenging for Massachusetts. Recent reports suggest 
state revenues are running $256 million behind budget. Make no 
mistake: This means that plans to dole out millions more to deal with 
the drug lab scandal are on a collision course with hard financial realities.

We need a better solution, instead of simply doing things over the same way.

Instead of retrying every case, the ACLU and Families Against 
Mandatory Minimums advocate that three types of cases simply be dismissed.

First, dismiss tainted cases involving nonviolent drug offenses. The 
decades-long drug war has failed to reduce rates of drug addiction, 
and it is past time to reconsider the fundamental drug war assumption 
that so many cases involving illegal drugs should be prosecuted 
aggressively. The drug lab scandal provides an opportunity to 
recognize that cases involving nonviolent drug offenses should never 
have been a high priority in the first place - so it makes even less 
sense to litigate them again.

Second, cases involving police officers or prosecutors who 
communicated directly with Annie Dookhan, the chemist at the center 
of the scandal, should also be dismissed. Police and prosecutors 
should have been walled off from the science of testing drug samples. 
Evidence mishandling means it could be impossible to establish the 
truth in these cases, and ensuring the integrity of the criminal 
justice system requires throwing them out.

Third, we should dismiss compromised cases involving defendants who 
have already served at least half their sentences. Those who have 
served time, lost jobs, or lost custody of children based on tainted 
evidence should not have to wait any longer for justice - in prison, 
at public expense - while prosecutors try to sort this out.

The drug lab scandal presents an unprecedented challenge for 
Massachusetts. For justice to be done and to avoid spending tens or 
even hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when the state budget 
is getting tighter, we should break with assumptions from the failed 
war on drugs and a one-size-fits-all solution.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom