Drug Laws Help Foster Juror Rebellions

To the Editor:

In your May 27 editorial "When Jurors Ignore the Law," you say that
the recent Federal Appeals Court ruling that grants authority to
judges to remove jurors who practice nullification "leaves
unaddressed the problem many Americans think of loosely as jury
nullification but which is really something deeper, and more
subtle.

That is the big gulf in how jurors of different racial backgrounds
and life experiences tend to perceive the law. . . ."
This is true, but it is not merely a matter of institutionalized
racism, or a perceptual divide between white and nonwhite
Americans.

The deeper problem is the disrespect for the legal system in
general, among both whites and black, that is fostered by the
criminal prohibition of drugs.

As happened during alcohol Prohibition, more and more jurors are
suffering moral qualms about enforcing Draconian antidrug laws and
are refusing to convict.

The case the Appeals Court ruled on grew out of such a drug case.

Paul Butler's article in the Yale Law Review argued that there
should be a presumption in favor of nullification in nonviolent
drug cases.

In Colorado recently, a juror was convicted of contempt of court as
a result of her refusing to vote to convict in a methamphetamine
case.

If jury nullification threatens the rule of law, it is because the
so-called war on drugs has created judicial injustice too severe
for citizens to accept.

The rising tide of jury nullification speaks to the extreme of our
drug laws, and the corrosive effect they are having on our system
of justice.

AARON D. WILSON

Associate Director, Partnership for
Responsible Drug Information