USA - "We will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented"

[malcolm kyle]

Here's a recent development that may bring us closer to the tipping point:

"If you're called for jury duty, let the lawyers and judges know up front that you're not going to send non-violent drug offenders to jail."

That provocative piece of advice comes from the creators of the television show, "The Wire," which ended its five-year run on HBO Sunday.

"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," the writers of the show declare in a recent Time magazine essay.

The essay is signed by David Simon, a former Baltimore Sun reporter who created the series; Ed Burns, a Baltimore cop-turned-teacher who became Simon's co-creator; William F. Zorzi Jr., another former Sun reporter ( who also plays a Sun reporter named Bill Zorzi on the show ), and best-selling crime novelists Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos and Richard Price.

"Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will ... no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war," they write. "No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses non-violent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens."


http://www.mapinc.org/drugn...

Reputation Comments on this post:

good post!

[fnord]

This would be awsome for members to photocopy and distribute.

[JDreaming]

An intelligent policy, and one I plan to follow if I'm ever forced to participate in such a case. I could never forgive myself the hypocrisy if I helped condemn an innocent, non-violent drug user to prison.

[Pondlife]

I believe that in some jurisdictions the prosecution can exclude jury members for various reasons. In these cases, it would be better not to let anyone know up front.

[Niteflights]

The sad reality to this form of altruism: you will be dismissed from performing jury on any drug related cases and they will instead be judged by average (i.e. brainwashed automatons).

Wouldn't it be better just to keep quiet and aquit all drug cases?

Better yet move to a country that doesn't require jury duty!

best
Andrei

[beentheredonethatagain]

this sounds more like a thread on how to get out of jury duty. I mean if one were to say that during the jury interview then they wont pick you to serve.

[kaczynski]

Originally Posted by Niteflights

The sad reality to this form of altruism: you will be dismissed from performing jury on any drug related cases and they will instead be judged by average (i.e. brainwashed automatons).

Wouldn't it be better just to keep quiet and aquit all drug cases?

Better yet move to a country that doesn't require jury duty!

best
Andrei

Yeah, this is certainly a good philosophy to have on the subject, and obviously a good one to announce if you want to get out of jury duty. But personally, if I was called to participate in the hearing of a non-violent drug offender, I would keep quiet until I was actually a member of the jury, at which point I would vote against her/his conviction.

[stoneinfocus]

Well, mexico had to quit it´s liberalistaion on all drugs due to presser of the united states and america.

[FuBai]

What's the moral rationale behind being able to choose the views of your jurors?

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by Niteflights

Wouldn't it be better just to keep quiet and acquit all drug cases?

Better yet move to a country that doesn't require jury duty!

Andrei

I agree with you fully on your first point, but the jury's still out on your second.

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by FuBai

What's the moral rationale behind being able to choose the views of your jurors?

before going to trial , there is the jury selection process. they screen potential jurors, and both sides the D.A. and the defense are allowed to dismiss something like 6 potential jurors each for any reason at all.

I guess to make sure that the jury won't be stacked too heavily in one direction or another.

[stoneinfocus]

If the media influences the jurors, this might bring about a law-change.Great to see the Sun ex-reporters has such a campaign, but then again, many balck sheep turned white and the other way aroud.

[JDreaming]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

this sounds more like a thread on how to get out of jury duty. I mean if one were to say that during the jury interview then they wont pick you to serve.

You wouldn't say anything during the interview, silly. This ideology can be quietly implemented at the end of a case when a verdict is being chosen.

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

this sounds more like a thread on how to get out of jury duty. I mean if one were to say that during the jury interview then they wont pick you to serve.

No; it's quite clearly a thread on how to force a change in the system. But your quite right about the initial advice from David Simon & Co. as being somewhat erroneous in nature if not in intent. But the good thing is, there's something in it for everyone; for those wishing to acquit -just keep your mouth shut! and for those wishing to avoid jury duty -just tell it as it is! Either way it looks like it may nobble prohibition.

[AntiAimer]

Originally Posted by Pondlife

I believe that in some jurisdictions the prosecution can exclude jury members for various reasons. In these cases, it would be better not to let anyone know up front.

Exactly, they do a screening process and it would be in Smurfs best interest not to tell all if they really do not want to put drug users in jail.

But that is the best way to not get picked.

[zera]

Originally Posted by AntiAimer

Exactly, they do a screening process and it would be in Smurfs best interest not to tell all if they really do not want to put drug users in jail.

But that is the best way to not get picked.

On the one hand by stealthily getting on the jury you may acquit the defendant, but more than likely you won't be able to sway the 11 other members and at best you'll force a mistrial.

By proclaiming refusal to cooperate during the screening process your opinion will be made loud and clear to the judge, prosecutor and police and you will lodge a clear protest. It's really the same rationale behind not voting or voting for a third party, you are sacrificing what is immediate practical to weaken the system.

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by zera

On the one hand by stealthily getting on the jury you may acquit the defendant, but more than likely you won't be able to sway the 11 other members and at best you'll force a mistrial.

You do, however, at least have a chance. It's possible that there may be like-minded people on the jury, or that you may be able to convince some of the floaters.

By proclaiming refusal to cooperate during the screening process your opinion will be made loud and clear to the judge, prosecutor and police and you will lodge a clear protest. It's really the same rationale behind not voting or voting for a third party, you are sacrificing what is immediate practical to weaken the system.

Although you may feel that you are "sticking it to the man" by doing this. I doubt that it will have any beneficial effect. Can you imagine the judge, prosecutor or police changing their beliefs because of this sort of action?

[fnord]

Originally Posted by Pondlife

Although you may feel that you are "sticking it to the man" by doing this. I doubt that it will have any beneficial effect. Can you imagine the judge, prosecutor or police changing their beliefs because of this sort of action?

IMHO If this happened often enough they would start to see that the whole world dosent see things the same way as them,and the more that people do this the more the word will get out about what people are doing and thus influence more people to think about the war on drugs in a different light, right now when "normal" people think of the war on drugs they think of cops aresting some insane homeless man trying to rob old ladies with a dirty needle on a playground I think opions will change when people relizes the majority of POdW's (prisoners of the drug war) are nonviolent,nice normal people just wanting to catch a buzz with a friend after comming home from a hard day of selling there soul for a paycheck.

Reputation Comments on this post:

My thoughts exactly...apart from the selling the soul bit.

[cra$h]

this is a really good idea, but of course you need people to follow.

[fnord]

Originally Posted by cra$h

this is a really good idea, but of course you need people to follow.

The fact that this was on TV will influance many people,alot of the non-thinking populace of america will blindly follow whatever a celebrity thinks is "cool" ive seen many young teenagers adopting the traits and politcal belifs of there favorite tv personality,so i feel this is an excelent way to convert people that would not normally be exposed to this kind of thinks. but then again ive never seen the tv show these people are from so who knows?

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by fnord

The fact that this was on TV will influance many people,alot of the non-thinking populace of america will blindly follow whatever a celebrity thinks is "cool" ive seen many young teenagers adopting the traits and politcal belifs of there favorite tv personality,so i feel this is an excelent way to convert people that would not normally be exposed to this kind of thinks. but then again ive never seen the tv show these people are from so who knows?

Very good point; America is very much a TV & Cinema based culture and if change does come, then something like this, presented say in an actual episode, might just tip the balance. I believe the film Traffic had a similar effect on public awareness.

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by malcolm kyle

Very good point; America is very much a TV & Cinema based culture and if change does come, then something like this, presented say in an actual episode, might just tip the balance. I believe the film Traffic had a similar effect on public awareness.

You may be interested in reading this article we have in the archive that concerns the film 'Traffic'.

Media constructions of illegal drugs, users, and sellers: a closer look at Traffic

This essay examines how the entertainment media constructs illegal drugs, users, and sellers. As well, it explores how television and movie producers are awarded for depicting ‘correct’ images of illegal drugs, users and sellers. The second half of the paper discusses the British made for television mini-series ‘Traffik’, and the later U.S. production ‘Traffic’. Six ‘war on drugs’ myths depicted in the U.S. film ‘Traffic’ are examined with a focus on race, class, and gender issues.


The film raises awareness about the multitude of drug problems affecting the US, but in what way? I wouldn't say that the film suggests one point of view over another (its been a while since I've seen it though), but it does reinforce pre-existing conceptions about drug trade and drug use that may incline people to keep supporting the status quo.

[zera]

Originally Posted by fnord

The fact that this was on TV will influance many people,alot of the non-thinking populace of america will blindly follow whatever a celebrity thinks is "cool" ive seen many young teenagers adopting the traits and politcal belifs of there favorite tv personality,so i feel this is an excelent way to convert people that would not normally be exposed to this kind of thinks. but then again ive never seen the tv show these people are from so who knows?

Unfortunately I don't think those types of people are watching the Wire in the first place, the show involves dozens of different characters interacting in tens of different plots whose arcs takes place over the course of 10-13 episodes. Its easily the most complex and in-depth on television today and probably ever, not exactly Laguna Beach.

[malcolm kyle]

Originally Posted by Bajeda

You may be interested in reading this article we have in the archive that concerns the film 'Traffic'.

Media constructions of illegal drugs, users, and sellers: a closer look at Traffic

This essay examines how the entertainment media constructs illegal drugs, users, and sellers. As well, it explores how television and movie producers are awarded for depicting ‘correct’ images of illegal drugs, users and sellers. The second half of the paper discusses the British made for television mini-series ‘Traffik’, and the later U.S. production ‘Traffic’. Six ‘war on drugs’ myths depicted in the U.S. film ‘Traffic’ are examined with a focus on race, class, and gender issues.


The film raises awareness about the multitude of drug problems affecting the US, but in what way? I wouldn't say that the film suggests one point of view over another (its been a while since I've seen it though), but it does reinforce pre-existing conceptions about drug trade and drug use that may incline people to keep supporting the status quo.

Thank you kindly Bajeda!

After reading Boyd's excellent essay I feel I may have to retract my initial statement concerning the film traffic and it's positive effect on public awareness.