I Complain A Lot

I really do.

In fact, looking back over my posts on this blog, I found that roughly 95 percent of them have some sort of complaint about the way the world works at their core. Complaining is cool, but I realized that I don't offer a bunch of solutions, which makes my complaining seem a lot like whining.

Anyway, I was strolling through the blogsphere and touched down for a minute at Nat Turner's Revenge. While perusing the brother's site, I came across a post he did about one of my favorite topics, HBO's The Wire.

I'll save my gushing explanation of the show for another time, since those of you who have read this blog for a while have heard it all before. Instead, I want to talk about one of the issues raised in the post about the show.

One of the main elements of The Wire is the futility of the War on Drugs and the impact that war has had on low-income people, particularly black folks. Anyway, the creators of the show did a piece for Time Magazine where they discussed one of their solutions for dealing with the War on Drugs and it was a doozy. You can check out the short article here.

As you can see, the authors advocate that anybody sitting on a jury that is considering a case involving drug violations vote for acquittal regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. They point out that jury nullification is an acceptable protest for citizens to engage in, particularly if the want change. The show's creators said that this strategy shouldn't be used if violence is involved in the case, but is justified if it is strictly a drug case.

Now that is interesting.

Before I even discuss the merits of this strategy, I would like to point out that it's kind of ironic that the show's creators advocate for it because in The Wire's final season one of the most loathsome characters on the show avoided prosecution through jury nullification.

State Senator Clay Davis, a snake who had his hands in more pockets than a Calcutta thief, managed to avoid conviction on accusations that he misused public funds by convincing a black jury that his prosecution was a result of rich, white folks looking to give him the shaft. Despite the mountain of evidence against Davis, the jury decided that racism was a bigger deal, and let him walk. The response by several characters, whose dialogue was of course okayed by the show's creators, expressed their disgust with the outcome and the jurors. So, it would seem that the show's creators only support jury nullification when it's used for issues they agree with it.

But, I digress.

The idea of using your position on a jury to write historical wrongs is one I've thought about on many occasions. I've never sat on a jury, but I've often wondered how I would comport myself if given that opportunity. I don't know if I would be able to sentence another black man to the hell that is prison, even if I think they are guilty of a heinous crime. I know for certain I would never be able to convict someone of a crime that could result in their death.

However, I don't believe that every juror should refuse to convict criminals on drug convictions simply to prove a point. On one hand, it would definitely send a message to the government that there needs to be a change in how law enforcement and the judicial system handle the drug problem. On the other hand, if criminals, (and despite the wrong done to them, these people are criminals) are allowed to operate without fear of consequences, I don't see things getting any better for folks in the hood.

The judicial system may be corrupt and unjust, but there is no denying that it is a deterrent.

I would rather see people focus their protests and complaints on impacting those areas where real change can be made to the system, instead of nullifying juries. I know the creators of The Wire have no faith in "systems," but I don't see how the world can work without certain systems. I think we as a nation need to figure out a way to force the government to spend more money on items like education, infrastructure and public services instead of just agreeing to let crack dealers walk.

But, while that sounds like a good solution, it's still pretty vague. In concrete terms, I think we need to advocate to change the funding mechanism for local school systems, that we need to do away with mandatory minimum drug sentences and that we need to make an immediate investment into job training and educational services for prisoners.

Schools should not be funded based on the affluence or lack of affluence of the local tax base. We need to have one big pot that allocates the same amounts to every student and also pays for capital improvements based on a priority system as opposed to a patronage system.

As I've said before, mandatory minimums are unjustly enforced and unfairly remove decision making from judges. There is no justification for the gap between the sentences for crack cocaine and powder cocaine, but, more importantly, it makes no sense to automatically sentence people to a decade in prison without considering the actual circumstances of their crime.

Finally, the way we treat prisoners in this country is atrocious. If we want prisoners to be positive, contributing members of society we have to spend money on helping them achieve those goals. We cannot warehouse them in cesspools that encourage recidivism much more than rehabilitation. Everyone understands that most prisoners lack education and job skills, let's rectify that problem to make them productive again.

I think that if more Americans rally around these three goals we can see immediate changes in our country, changes for the better. Otherwise we're doomed to fight the same drug war over and over, with our only recourse being to punish offenders harshly or let them free to commit more crimes.