-Caveat Lector-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-01/03/011r-010300-idx.html

A Corrupt 'War on Drugs'

            By William Raspberry

            Monday, January 3, 2000; Page A19

            Twenty years ago, my worry was the
            corrupting influence of drug trafficking --
            not just on the addicts but on sheriff's
            deputies paid to be somewhere else when
            the big drop was made, on small-time
            politicians and judges and, eventually, I
            feared, on large and small governments.

            The big-time drug operators had so much
            money to throw around (and were so
            ruthless when it came to those who
            threatened their riches) that more and more
            people were being drawn, however
            reluctantly, into their conspiracy.

            I still worry. But it's the corrupting
            influence of the war on drugs that worries
            me now. I've just seen what you may have
            seen a year ago when PBS first broadcast it:
            a "Frontline" special called "Snitch." The
            program is a compendium of questionable
            behavior by people sworn to uphold the
            law -- decent people corrupted by their
            desire to jail as many members of the illicit
            drug business as they can.

            Their biggest tool, the show claims, is the
            snitch: Not some "Huggy Bear" giving
            valuable leads to TV detectives, but
            certified crooks who buy their freedom (or
            at least reduced sentences) by giving up
            other folk who may or may not deserve it.

            If you saw the piece, you will remember
            Lula May Smith, the Mobile, Ala., motel
            maid who, then in her late fifties, was
            arrested, prosecuted, convicted and sent to
            prison for seven years. The strokes she
            endured while in prison left her crippled.

            And here's the truly chilling part of the
            story: The prosecutor, Willie Huntley, says
            flat-out that he never believed her to be
            involved in drugs, never thought she
            should have been convicted and never
            wanted her to go to prison. He really
            wanted her son, Darren Sharp.

            But Sharp, knowing he was being sought,
            took off. The authorities went after Lula
            May Smith in the belief Sharp would turn
            himself in to free his mom.

            Said the prosecutor: "The jury started
            reading the verdicts . . . and I think Lula's
            name was way down near the bottom. . . .
            And the closer we got to her name, the
            more I kept hoping, 'Please let them say
            [she's] not guilty.' . . . I'd pray a little bit
            harder. . . . But . . . they said 'guilty' [for
            her] too. . . . I still say she shouldn't have
            gone to jail."

            Even if you buy the prosecutor's contention
            that the son was "one of the biggest dealers
            in the Prichard [Ala.] area," how can it be
            right to throw the innocent mother in the
            slammer?

            Well, say the law enforcement people who
            accept that we are in a war on drugs,
            innocence is a tricky notion. Most of the
            people who wind up doing serious time are
            guilty, they say, even if they wouldn't have
            been convicted without the aid of snitches
            with information to trade.

            But what is startling about these
            "Frontline" stories is the number of cases in
            which the prosecutors had nothing but the
            snitches' word and still managed to get
            confessions.

            The way it apparently works is that
            somebody gets busted for drug trafficking
            and, thanks to the mandatory minimum
            sentences Congress enacted in 1986, he's
            looking at anywhere from five to 10 years
            to life. Unless . . .

            You see, there's a provision in the law that
            allows leniency for "substantial assistance"
            to law enforcement officers. In other words,
            get yourself a deal by giving up your
            friends -- or even strangers.

            One young man says he was a small-time
            dealer for three years but had been out of
            the business when some acquaintances
            were caught and "started naming names" --
            including his. He went to jail for longer
            than the snitches.

            Clarence Aaron, a Southern University
            student at the time, stupidly got involved
            with some small-time dealers. He says he
            never used or sold drugs himself but did
            arrange meetings between the dealers and
            potential buyers. When his pals were
            arrested (with previous convictions they all
            faced life sentences), they gave up Aaron
            and got reduced sentences. Aaron, whose
            record was clean and against whom the
            only evidence was the word of desperate
            snitches, is in the federal prison in Atlanta,
            serving three life terms with no chance of
            parole.

            As one defense lawyer put it, "If I offered a
            witness a hundred-dollar bill to come
            down and say it my way, I'd go to prison
            for that. But yet [the prosecutors] can give .
            . . something far more precious than
            money. . . . They can give . . . freedom." It's
            awfully tempting, in those circumstances,
            to tell prosecutors what they want to hear.

            So what should we do? Obviously I
            wouldn't want to outlaw the use of
            snitches, though reliance on the
            uncorroborated word of snitches whose
            own freedom is at stake makes me nervous.
            And I'm still not ready to say just legalize
            drugs and be done with it.

            But I am ready to end this stupid and
            ineffectual "war" on drugs that puts such a
            premium on locking people up. And I am
            more convinced than ever that it's time to
            rethink "zero tolerance," mandatory
            sentences and all those feel-good nostrums
            that are corrupting our judicial system as
            much as the drug lords ever did.

              � Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
                           Company

--
-----------------------
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
-----------------------

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to