"The Wire" writers: We will nullify drug charges

[KBCraig]

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1719872,00.html

Wednesday, Mar. 05, 2008
The Wire's War on the Drug War
By Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, David Simon

We write a television show. Measured against more thoughtful and meaningful occupations, this is not the best seat from which to argue public policy or social justice. Still, those viewers who followed The Wire — our HBO drama that tried to portray all sides of inner-city collapse, including the drug war, with as much detail and as little judgment as we could muster — tell us they've invested in the fates of our characters. They worry or grieve for Bubbles, Bodie or Wallace, certain that these characters are fictional yet knowing they are rooted in the reality of the other America, the one rarely acknowledged by anything so overt as a TV drama.

These viewers, admittedly a small shard of the TV universe, deluge us with one question: What can we do? If there are two Americas — separate and unequal — and if the drug war has helped produce a psychic chasm between them, how can well-meaning, well-intentioned people begin to bridge those worlds?

And for five seasons, we answered lamely, offering arguments about economic priorities or drug policy, debating theoreticals within our tangled little drama. We were storytellers, not advocates; we ducked the question as best we could.

Yet this war grinds on, flooding our prisons, devouring resources, turning city neighborhoods into free-fire zones. To what end? State and federal prisons are packed with victims of the drug conflict. A new report by the Pew Center shows that 1 of every 100 adults in the U.S. — and 1 in 15 black men over 18 — is currently incarcerated. That's the world's highest rate of imprisonment.

The drug war has ravaged law enforcement too. In cities where police agencies commit the most resources to arresting their way out of their drug problems, the arrest rates for violent crime — murder, rape, aggravated assault — have declined. In Baltimore, where we set The Wire, drug arrests have skyrocketed over the past three decades, yet in that same span, arrest rates for murder have gone from 80% and 90% to half that. Lost in an unwinnable drug war, a new generation of law officers is no longer capable of investigating crime properly, having learned only to make court pay by grabbing cheap, meaningless drug arrests off the nearest corner.

What the drugs themselves have not destroyed, the warfare against them has. And what once began, perhaps, as a battle against dangerous substances long ago transformed itself into a venal war on our underclass. Since declaring war on drugs nearly 40 years ago, we've been demonizing our most desperate citizens, isolating and incarcerating them and otherwise denying them a role in the American collective. All to no purpose. The prison population doubles and doubles again; the drugs remain.

Our leaders? There aren't any politicians — Democrat or Republican — willing to speak truth on this. Instead, politicians compete to prove themselves more draconian than thou, to embrace America's most profound and enduring policy failure.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right," wrote Thomas Paine when he called for civil disobedience against monarchy — the flawed national policy of his day. In a similar spirit, we offer a small idea that is, perhaps, no small idea. It will not solve the drug problem, nor will it heal all civic wounds. It does not yet address questions of how the resources spent warring with our poor over drug use might be better spent on treatment or education or job training, or anything else that might begin to restore those places in America where the only economic engine remaining is the illegal drug economy. It doesn't resolve the myriad complexities that a retreat from war to sanity will require. All it does is open a range of intricate, paradoxical issues. But this is what we can do — and what we will do.

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. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. 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 is American dissent, as old and as heralded as the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, who was acquitted of seditious libel against the royal governor of New York, and absent a government capable of repairing injustices, it is legitimate protest. If some few episodes of a television entertainment have caused others to reflect on the war zones we have created in our cities and the human beings stranded there, we ask that those people might also consider their conscience. And when the lawyers or the judge or your fellow jurors seek explanation, think for a moment on Bubbles or Bodie or Wallace. And remember that the lives being held in the balance aren't fictional.

The authors are all members of the writing staff of HBO's The Wire, which concludes its five-year run on March 9

[David]

A while back when I was just a newly minted libertarian, I read an article that supported deemphasizing the drug war on the Libertarian party's platform. 
Having never used an illegal drug, it was an issue that didn't resonate with me.  But when I worked in inner city akron ohio, it became a bit clearer.  Marijuana is a non issue, for everyone except the police politicians, moralist do gooders, and well meaning parents. 
How the gov't treats people is THE thing that makes it so destructive to people.  The drug war is the strongest manifestation of that destructive power, and as such should never be deemphasized for political expiediancy. 

[ThePug]

Good for them. The cognitive dissonance required to defend trail by jury but then oppose jury nullification baffles me. What do these people think a jury is for? It's most certainly not because 12 random people, with no relevant experience at all, are somehow better suited to judge the facts in a criminal case. It, like the even more maligned grand jury, is supposed to be a popular check on prosecutorial abuse. "Consent of the governed", oxymoron or not, used to be a much more involved process than the simple show-up-and-vote people take it for today. The reason the number of police has exploded (and why they have been militarized) is because laws, for the most part, used to require the active assistance of the citizenry to enforce. The original reason London's "bobbies" weren't armed is because with the simple blow of a whistle they'd have a dozen citizens, often armed, at their disposal to subdue any trouble maker. The thinking on this side of the Atlantic was similar- thus posses composed of volunteer citizens who were simply directed by an agent of the state. Then, once a person was arrested, the prosecutor had to go to a grand jury- which was a far cry from the prosecutor-controlled farces of today- and convince another group of citizens that charges were justified. Then it went to trial were yet another group of citizens had to unanimously decide that not only was the person guilty as a matter of law, but that the law should be enforced.

The simple passage of legislation was probably the least democratic part of the whole process. No law could be enforced, nor charges brought, nor a conviction obtained without the active assistance of a citizenry who judged both the case and the law.

[J’raxis 270145]

When I started reading that, it sounded like they were going to use their TV show as a vehicle to get information about jury nullification out to viewers. All this letter does is make sure no prosecutor will ever let Ed Burns, Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, Richard Price, or David Simon sit on a jury.