From: ottojg@freenet.tlh.fl.us (John G. Otto)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.drugs,talk.politics.guns
Subject: War Crimes: The Prosecution Objects
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 17:46:30 +0400
Message-ID: <ottojg-290394174630@hotline.cc.fsu.edu>

FSU Research in Review   Volume 5 #2  1994 Spring
published by the FSU Office of the Vice President for Research
100 Sliger Building
Innovation Park
Tallahassee, FL   32306-3067
904-644-8634   904-644-8648

Law & Disorder: How the Drug War is Wrecking American Justice

Welfare State of Shame
Scuba Science
Tallahassee Taxol
Stalin & Korea

cover story, page 8: War Crime: Legacy of a Lost Cause
A searing analysis by 2 FSU economists tells why the drug war not 
only is lost, but is a monster well on its way to killing what's left 
of America's system of law & order.   by Frank Stephenson

The Prosecution Objects
by Ken Sukhia

Our nation is caught in the grip of a violent crime epidemic with FL 
recording the highest crime rate in the nation for each of the last 
10 years.  In the face of this carnage, FSU professors Rasmussen & 
Benson ask us to believe that the real culprits are not so much the 
criminals themselves, but police, prosecutors & judges who 'graze 
unbridled' through the grass lands of law enforcement, 'plundering' 
the 'criminal justice commons' with little regard for what's in 
society's best interest.  What's more, these selfless & dedicated 
public servants are said to commit this 'abuse' for no higher ends 
than the enhancement of their own budgets & egos.

As the theory goes, these professionals have 'packed our prisons with 
people who shouldn't be there', the 'vast majority' of whom are '2 
bit users & traffickers' & as a result truly violent offenders are 
being released too early.

This theory is based on 3 major assumptions, all of which are 
erroneous.  

First, the problem in FL & elsewhere is not that certain crimes are 
treated seriously at the expense of others, but that as a rule state 
criminals are not being subjected to serious punishment, no matter 
what crimes they commit.  Nationally, state inmates serve only 5.5 
years for homicide, 3.0 years for rape, 2.25 years for robbery & 1.25 
years for assault.  In FL, the situation is so serious that 2 state 
attorneys actually sued to stop early releases, noting that 'law 
abiding citizens are fed up with FL's revolving door criminal 
justice'.  Of the 140K felons convicted in FL last year, only 30,530 
made it to prison at all, & those who did served less than a third of 
their already low sentences.  Nearly half of all FL prison inmates 
released in the 1st 6 months of 1993 served less than 6 months time.  
Moreover, in FL drug offenders spend less time in prison than 
virtually any other category of inmates & the number of drug 
offenders admitted to FL prisons has declined in each of the last 4 
years.

Second, Rasmussen & Benson's distinction between drug offenders & 
violent criminals ignores a critical fact.  Whether it takes the form 
of crime by addicts, intimidation by traffickers or the corruption of 
our nation's youth, violence is an inherent feature of the illicit 
drug trade.  Dept of Justice surveys confirm that 28% of state 
prisoners incarcerated for murder & a third of those serving time for 
violent offenses were under the influence of drugs at the time of 
their crimes.  According to the Bu of Justice Statistics, nearly 30% 
of all robberies & burglaries were committed by drug users to support 
their habits.  Throughout the nation, law enforcement officials have 
repeatedly affirmed that drugs are the major cause of increased 
property & violent crimes in their communities.  Despite such 
evidence, Rasmussen & Benson dismiss this notion as an 'incorrect 
assumption' & a popular misbelief.

Finally, there is simply no support for the assertion that the 'vast 
majority' of drug inmates are '2 bit users & traffickers'.  Recent 
DOC studies show that 53% of FL's drug inmates previously served time 
for other offenses, with 29% having had 2 or more prior commitments 
to prison.  These figures include only those prior convictions which 
actually resulted in prison time.  Moreover, the claim that our state 
prisons are over-crowded with minor offenders, drug related or 
otherwise, is belied by the statistics from the National Institute of 
Justice showing that 95% of all state prisoners are repeat or violent 
offenders.  The only way to obtain an accurate picture of the 
criminal characteristics of the inmate population serving time for 
drug offenses is to examine the criminal history & sentencing record 
for each offender, an analysis not undertaken by Rasmussen & Benson.

A recent article on federal sentences in North FL illustrates the 
problem.  A defense attorney had argued that federal sentences are 
too harsh, citing the case of a drug defendant who received a 46 year 
sentence.  According to the attorney, this man was a 'relatively 
minor drug offender' who 'realistically (is) not a threat to 
society'.  The sentencing record revealed, however, that the 
defendant took a submachine gun to 1 cocaine deal, & on another 
occasion pointed a semi-automatic pistol at an under-cover officer & 
threatened, 'Don't f--- with me or I'll kill you.  I've killed people 
for less.'.  Under the professors' approach, this inmate would be 
counted among the minor offenders who are clogging up the system.

Even if all their assumptions were accepted as true, at the heart of 
Rasmussen & Benson's study is the false notion that either the 
democratic process doesn't work or the public doesn't know what's 
good for them.  [???]  The people of this nation have made a 
determination that drug use & drug trafficking are injurious to the 
common good.  When law enforcement attempts to convert the will of 
the people into reality, they are not exercising 'unbridled' 
discretion.  They are simply discharging their duty as 
representatives of the people.  If there is any break-down between 
the will of the people & the actions of the criminal justice system, 
it is not that government is being too tough on drug offenders but 
that it is not being as tough on them as the public would like.

The authors see the issue as a question of whether the public would 
prefer that a drug dealer go free in order to keep a known killer in 
prison.  The more pertinent question is whether given the option the 
public would prefer that both the known killer & the drug dealer stay 
in prison.  As countless public opinion surveys confirm, that is the 
clear will of the public.

Rasmussen & Benson take special aim at presidents Reagan & Bush for 
their part in expanding the so-called war on drugs.  Ironically, 
these presidents were responsible for restoring to the federal 
criminal justice system the type of integrity & confidence which the 
authors find so lacking in the state's.  When I began service as an 
Assistant US Attorney in 1980 May, federal prisoners served less than 
a third of their sentences.  Thanks to the Reagan & Bush 
administrations, federal prisoners now serve at least 87% of their 
terms, parole has been abolished, & violent offenders face tough 
mandatory sentences.  Americans undoubtedly would sleep better at 
night, & work in more safety by day, if every state's sentencing 
scheme were as tough on crime as the federal system.

For all their criticism of the drug war, the professors over-looked 
some telling evidence of its impact.  The National Institute on Drug 
Abuse reports that, by the time president Bush left office, illegal 
drug use among all age groups had plummeted from its peak in 1979 to 
its lowest level since the surveys began.

many of the beneficiaries of the Reagan/Bush war on drugs will never 
be known.  They are the untold millions who managed to avoid being 
victimized by drugs & their inherent violence because of the many 
drug lords & traffickers who served the better part of their time in 
the 'war' behind bars.  Not a bad legacy to law enforcement 
professionals & other 'abusers' of the common good.
----------------------------------------------------------------

From 1990 to 1993, Kenneth W. Sukhia served as president Bush's 
appointment as US attorney for N FL.  Today, he is director of the 
Criminal Justice Project of the James Madison Institute for Public 
Policy Studies & is a partner with the Fowler, White law firm in 
Tallahassee.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber's note: I met KW Sukhia at a JMI forum.  As the meeting 
was breaking up, one of the others asked him the subject of his most 
important current case.  His answer was that they were prosecuting 
some women for wearing tonga swim suits in public.

There are several problems with his 'objections'.

He misunderstands what B&R 'ask us to believe'.  They have pointed 
out that the incentive system created by the legislators, police, 
prosecutors & judges has the effect of discouraging them from 
optimizing the use of the resources available to them, and causes 
them to neglect some of the costs.  B&R did not suggest that the 
members of the justice system are evil or solely motivated by their 
budgets and egos.

Between 20% and 67% of arrests are for 'crimes' which have no victims 
(the wide range is due to the coarseness of the data as well as 
variation over the past 20 years).  Considering the more than 1M 
prisoners in federal & state prisons and, about the same number in 
local jails, it is not unreasonable to say that a significant number 
of inmates are likely to be people who should not be there.  
Of those there for 'drug offenses', it would be very surprising if 
the vast majority were major wholesalers rather than users and 
2 bit traffickers.  The fact remains that violent offenders ARE
sometimes released early due to 'over-crowding' while victimless 
'criminals' are newly incarcerated is well established.

In his discussion of sentencing and time served, he carefully 
neglects to mention the mandatory minimums on federal drug 'crimes', 
nor does he notice the automatic additional penalties such as loss of 
right to vote, to petition for changes to the constitution, to carry 
fire arms, etc. which come with a felony conviction, regardless of 
time actually served in jail or prison.  It is ironic that we've 
given these public officials the power to disenfranchise a major
portion of their opposition.

Violence is, indeed, an inherent feature of the *illicit* drug trade.  
A point KWS misses is that it is largely caused by the fact that the 
trade is illicit.  The supposition that less than 1/3 of violent 
criminals were taking illegal drugs at the time of their violent 
acts is irrelevant.  It is the violent act which is to be condemned.  
He goes on to confuse assertion with evidence.

Federal judges & state legislators have been stating at least since 
1986 that the prison/jail system is 'over-crowded'.  If there is 1 
inmate there for a victimless 'crime' while a violent offender is 
set free, that is 1 victimless 'crime' prisoner too many.

His story of a minor drug 'offender' who felt it necessary to defend 
himself with a submachine gun on one occasion and a hand gun on 
another does not indicate that he initiated force with either, merely 
that he warned the other person that he was ready to defend himself.  
Note that, if not for the drug war, and government violation of the
2nd amendment, this person would not be an 'offender' at all, minor 
or major, based on the information related.

Many of the victims of the FDR/Truman/Eisenhower/Johnson/Nixon/
Ford/Carter/Reagan/Bush/Clinton... war on drugs will never be known.  
They are the untold tens of millions who have been victimized through 
murder, kidnapping, torture, home invasion (even nation invasion), 
bodily invasion, loss of financial & personal privacy, civil asset 
forfeiture... all prompted by that state of 'war' itself.
-- 
jgo   ottojg@freenet.tlh.fl.us