-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tying Physicians' Hands (A Staff Editorial In The Waco, Texas
'Tribune-Herald' Opposes Congressional Efforts To Nullify Oregon's
Unique Assisted Suicide Law)

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:48:25 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Editorial: Tying Physicians' Hands
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Polly Wilmoth (http://www.actiononpain.org)
Source: Waco Tribune-Herald
Section: Editorial, Opinion
Contact: letters@mail.iamerica.net
Pubdate: Sun, 2 Aug 1998
Author: John Young, Opinion page editor
Note: John Young's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.

TYING PHYSICIANS' HANDS

Congress Shouldn't Meddle On Calls To Ease Dying People's Pain

Medical doctors need to make decisions about medical treatment, not
politicians.

This is especially true when doctors are caring for terminally ill patients
who are suffering unbelievable pain.

Unfortunately, the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act would require the Drug
Enforcement Administration to second-guess doctors when they prescribe
drugs to relieve the intractable pain of dying patients.

The bill would be a leap backward. What is needed is to remove
second-guessing bureaucrats who interfere with doctor-patient relationships.

The bill is designed to prevent doctor-assisted suicides by requiring that
DEA agents revoke the DEA licenses of doctors whose prescriptions assist in
a patient's death.

The bill may play well on the campaign trail, but it should be rejected for
several reasons.

For starters, the Supreme Court ruled last year that the issue of
doctor-assisted suicides should be left to the states, not the federal
government. That appears to be a reasonable decision.

This bill, sponsored by Republicans Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and Sen.
Don Nickels of Oklahoma, is a way to get around the Supreme Court decision
and place the doctor-assisted suicide issue back among Washington
politicians and bureaucrats.

The citizens and their elected representatives in the various states should
be in the best position to tackle this difficult issue.

Another, perhaps more pressing, reason to oppose this bill is the chilling
effect it will have on physicians who are asked by their terminally ill
patients for relief from unbearable pain.

Under the proposed Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act, doctors who administer
drugs to help relieve the suffering of a dying patient know they will be
second-guessed by federal agents if the patient dies, which is inevitiable
since the patients on death's door most likely need relief from agonizing
pain.

This ill-conceived bill would be a special setback for terminally ill
Texans because the Lone Star state has been in the forefront in the United
States in authorizing doctors licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners to
administer controlled and dangerous drugs to help relieve patients'
suffering. It's called the Intractable Pain Act.

Just as doctors and health-care providers are learning more about easing
the last days of dying patients, this bill would be a tragic setback.

People deserve all assistance possible to leave this life with dignity,
which is why the Congress should reject the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention
Act.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Praise And Pillory (A Staff Editorial In The Long Beach, California
'Press-Telegram' Criticizes The Recent Decision By Orange County
Superior Court Judge Robert Fitzgerald That Marvin Chavez, The Founder
Of The Orange County Cannabis Co-Op, Cannot Use Proposition 215
As A Defense In His Trial On Charges Of Selling Marijuana)

Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 23:43:03 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Praise And Pillory
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ@aol.com
Pubdate: Sun, 2 Aug 1998
Source: Press-Telegram (CA)
Contact: speakout@ptconnect.infi.net.
Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/

EDITORIAL: PRAISE AND PILLORY

Rx: Marijuana

Judges have latitude to interpret the law, justifiably. But it is hard to
fathom, much less justify, the recent decision by an Orange County Superior
Court Judge, Robert Fitzgerald, that Marvin Chavez, who founded the Orange
County Cannabis Co-Op, cannot use Proposition 215 as a defense in his trial
on charges of selling marijuana.

It is perfectly obvious that Chavez was selling marijuana for medicinal
purposes, which California voters approved when they voted for 215. In
fact, undercover police say they used a fake letter from a doctor when they
tricked Chavez into selling them some marijuana.

Beyond that, the judge approved a prosecutor's request for access to Chavez'
files to check out doctors' notes from others who have bought marijuana,
ostensibly for medicinal use.

The Orange County D.A., Carl Armbrust, argues that 215 doesn't authorize
sales, or even sales that are passed off as donations, therefore Chavez was
breaking the law even if he provided marijuana only for medical purposes.
That theory is a stretch, but not as much of a stretch as arguing that
Chavez can't use 215 in his defense.

Let's hope Chavez wins on appeal. We'll be surprised if he doesn't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Marijuana Arrests Up For Sixth Straight Year As District Attorneys
Attack Medical Marijuana Clubs - Lungren Calls For More Of The Same
(A News Release From California NORML Says Newly Released Figures
From The Bureau Of Criminal Statistics Show There Were 57,667
Marijuana Arrests In California In 1997, Up From 56,956 In 1996,
And California Has Spent More Money Trying To Persecute
Medical Marijuana Patients Than Trying To Implement Proposition 215)

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 21:18:26 -0800
To: aro@drugsense.org, dpfca@drugsense.org
From: canorml@igc.apc.org (Dale Gieringer)
Subject: DPFCA: Cal MJ Arrests Up Again
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/

-California NORML Press Release Aug. 2, 1998 -

Marijuana Arrests Up For 6th Straight Year as D.A.s Attack Medical
Marijuana Clubs, Lungren Calls for More of the Same

The number of marijuana arrests in California increased again in
1997 despite the passage of Proposition 215 according to newly released
figures from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, The data show 57,667
marijuana arrests in 1997, up from 56,956 in 1996, conclusively refuting
claims by Attorney General Lungren that Prop. 215 has effectively legalized
marijuana.

The new data come in the wake of a wave of arrests and prosecutions
of medical marijuana patients and providers around the state in a crackdown
by anti-215 D.A.s led by Attorney General Lungren.

* In Orange county, patient David Herrick was sentenced to 4 years
in prison for supplying less than an ounce of marijuana to patients of the
Orange County Cannabis Co-Op. Judge William Froeberg instructed the jury
to ignore Prop. 215 and the medical benefits of marijuana. Herrick's
sentence will cost taxpayers $25,000 per year for less than $100 of pot.

* In a related case, Orange County Cannabis Co-Op Director Marvin
Chavez, who suffers a degenerative spinal disease, faces a possible 12-year
sentence for distributing medical marijuana. Judge Robert Fitzgerald has
ruled that Chavez can not claim protection under Prop.215 and has ordered
the club's patient records to be turned over to prosecutors. Chavez's trial
and jury selection are set to begin on August 3, 8:30 a.m. at the Orange
County Central Courthouse, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Division 39, 10th
floor in Santa Ana.

* In San Diego, patient Steven McWilliams and Dion Markgraaff are
charged with growing pot for patients of a now-defunct San Diego club.

* In San Jose, Santa Clara Medical Cannabis Center director Peter
Baez faces felony charges for distributing marijuana.

* In the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, five medical
marijuana clubs have been charged with contempt of court for violating a
preliminary injunction by distributing medical marijuana. Hearings before
Judge Charles Breyer are scheduled August 31, 1998, 2:30 p.m. at the S.F.
Federal Building.

* In San Bernardino county, disabled patient Gene Weeks was arrested for
growing his own marijuana by sheriffs who told him that Prop. 215 "doesn't
apply" because of federal law.

* In Los Angeles, author/patient Peter McWilliams, patient Todd
McCormick, and seven others have been indicted on federal charges of
conspiring to manufacture medical marijuana for patients in Southern
California. Under federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, the
cost of their imprisonment alone could exceed $1 million.

California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer argues that the
government has spent more money trying to persecute medical marijuana
patients than trying to implement Prop. 215. A proposed bill by Sen. John
Vasconcellos to let counties and cities establish local medical marijuana
distribution programs has been stalled under opposition from Lungren and
Gov. Wilson.

"Attorney General Lungren's war on medical marijuana shows he is
more intent on creating crime than preventing it," argues Gieringer. "Not
only has he ignored Prop. 215's mandate to establish a plan for "safe and
affordable" distribution of medical marijuana, he is wasting taxpayers'
money persecuting those who do so."

Speaking in a gubernatorial debate last Friday, Lungren called for
more anti-drug enforcement. In fact, California now has a record number of
marijuana and other drug prisoners, and marijuana arrests have been
increasing for six years in a row. Despite this, surveys show marijuana
use had increased under Lungren's tenure as attorney general.

The onslaught of arrests shows that California's war on marijuana
is bankrupt, says California NORML. This August 10th marks the 85th
anniversary of marijuana prohibition in California. Over this period,
usage has increased from near-zero to millions of adults. Over the same
time, there have been over 1,800,000 cannabis arrests, 1,000,000 of them
felonies. In 1975, the legislature partially decriminalized marijuana,
saving the state an estimated $100 million per year in enforcement costs.
Since then, however, arrests have continued at half their preceding level.

California NORML proposes a three-step program to reduce the costs
of marijuana enforcement: (1) Implement a "safe and affordable"
distribution system for medical marijuana as called for in Prop; 215; (2)
Decriminalize personal use cultivation of marijuana by adults to reduce
dependency on the illicit market, as in some Australian states; (3) Allow
cities and counties to establish regulated zones where licensed cannabis
clubs could provide cannabis to adults, as in Amsterdam.

For more info, contact Dale Gieringer, Cal. NORML: (415) 563-5858.

***

Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml@igc.apc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Tough Laws Create 'Recipe For Disaster' ('The Oakland Tribune'
Says The Parolee Recidivism Rate In California Is The Highest In The Nation,
A By Product Of The Explosion In California's Prison Population
Caused Largely By Tough Anti-Drug And Three-Strikes Sentencing Laws
Introduced Since The 1980s)

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:42:30 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: "Tough Laws Create 'Recipe For Disaster'"
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jerry Sutliff
Pubdate: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
Source: Oakland Tribune
Contact: triblet@angnewspapers.com
Section: front page
Author: Vince Beiser, Staff Writer

TOUGH LAWS CREATE 'RECIPE FOR DISASTER'

Parolee Recidivism Rate (In Calif.) Highest In Nation

Each of the many times Harry Ismail Taylor was paroled from prison in the
past 13 years, he knew he wouldn't last long outside.

Released with only the standard $200 and a bus ticket home, still lacking
job skills, poorly educated and addicted to the cocaine that got him
imprisoned in the first place, Taylor would drift naturally back to his old
neighborhood in San Francisco's Fillmore district and start getting high
again.

Sooner or later, his parole officer would catch him and 'revoke' Taylor
back behind bars.

"I felt like a boomerang going back and forth," said Taylor, now 33 and
free, once again, on parole.

The number of parolees is at an all-time high and continues to rise, a by
product of the explosion in California's prison population caused largely
by tough anti-drug and "three strikes" sentencing laws introduced since the
1980s. There are more than 108,000 men and women on state parole, more than
four times the total in 1984.

But as the number of parolees has skyrocketed, the resources to help keep
them from winding up back in prison -from parole agents to drug
rehabilitation programs - have not kept pace. Partly as a result,
California has the worst rate of recidivism, or parolees being sent back
behind bars, in the country.

Two out of three California parolees become recidivists, more than double
the rates in Texas and New York. Incarcerating each one costs more than
$20,000 a year.

"High parole revocation rates," sums up a recent report by the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency, "present an enormous waste of California
Department of Corrections' resources."

According to the state Department of Corrections, 10 per cent of parolees
are homeless, half are illiterate and 85 per cent have substance abuse
problems. Only about 10 per-cent, however, receive pre-release services to
get them ready for the outside. Small wonder that many end up involved with
drugs again, or commit other crimes, say experts.

Awareness is slowly growing that spending money on programs to help
parolees make it on the outside can help pre-vent the much higher costs of
throwing them back in jail. Since the early 1990s, the Department of
Corrections has launched a series of small programs aimed specifically at
preventing parole failure.

Harry Ismail Taylor is currently learning basic reading and mathematics
skills through one such program, a competent literacy project designed by
the Contra Costa County Office of Education, a nonprofit group. "I really
got tired of the drugs," said Taylor, sitting in the computer lab in a
downtown San Francisco drug rehabilitation and social services center. Now
clean and sober, he is aiming to study psychology at City College.

The Office of Education's literacy programs, and a drug rehabilitation
program it designed, serve thousands of parolees across the state every
year. Such programs have been found to reduce recidivism. But the total
budget for such anti-parole failure programs is currently $7.9 million -
less than $75 per parolee.

The state Legislature is seeking to as much as double the funding for those
programs. Their fate remains uncertain, however, with the state budget
still in limbo.

Another $5 million to $6 million dollars are spent every year on other
support services for parolees, such as bus passes or temporary shelter.

Those services are usually coordinated by parole agents, who are often too
overworked to do much more than monitor whether their charges are vio-Latin
their parole conditions.

Twenty years ago, a typical parole agent was tasked with supervising 45
parolees. Today, the ratio is about 80 parolees per agent.

"Parole officers used to try to at least get their parolees on welfare, if
there was nothing else availab]e, but now that's drying up too," said Craig
Cornett, a spokesperson for the Legislative Analyst's Office in Sacramento.
"So you end up with all these guys with few marketable skills, drug habits
and nowhere to turn out on the streets. It's a recipe for disaster.'

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal Justice - Hoary Stories From California's State Prisons (An Editorial
By John Jacobs, Political Editor Of Mcclatchy Newspapers,
In 'The Orange County Register,' Says The Details That Have Emerged
About Guard's Actions Against Inmates At Corcoran Prison Are Too Outrageous
To Ignore - The Ultimate Question Is Whether The Wilson Administration,
And To A Lesser Extent Attorney General Dan Lungren, Covered Up
Or Whitewashed Allegations Of Serious Wrongdoing In The Department
Of Corrections)

From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: "MAPNews-posts (E-mail)" (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: Criminal Justice:
Hoary Stories from California"s State Prisons
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 00:15:47 -0500
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W.Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Pubdate: Sat, 2 Aug 1998
Author: John Jacobs, Political Editor of McClatchy Newspapers

CRIMINAL JUSTICE: HOARY STORIES FROM CALIFORNIA'S STATE PRISONS

Sacramento - While he was chief of staff to Gov. George
Deukmejian,Sacramento attorney Steve Merksamer said, in an oral
history, he worried that a prison riot could start somewhere in
California. Given the massive growth of prisons and the increase in
prisoners incarcerated between 1983 and 1990, his was not an
irrational fear. Luckily for Deukmejian, and indeed for California, no
riot happened on his watch.

It now appears, eight years later, that the Wilson administration has
not been so fortunate. But in a twist, the riots have come not from
the inmates but from some bad apples among correctional officers, men
and women with guns and a license to shoot whose preparation for the
job consists of a high school degree and six weeks of training.

The ultimate question at hand, as raised in recent newspaper articles,
in U.S. Department of Justice indictments of prison guards and in
extensive and sometimes explosive legislative hearings in Sacramento
last week, is whether the Wilson administration, and to a lesser
extent Attorney General Dan Lungren, covered up or whitewashed
allegations of serious wrongdoing in the Department of
Corrections.

No evidence has emerged to tie any coverups either to Wilson or
Lungren, and both Wilson administration officials and Lungren heatedly
deny any such thing. The Department of Corrections concedes there had
been troublesome incidents, but maintains that it took appropriate
disciplinary action against correctional officers who violated rules
and procedures.

But questions remain: Did they punish whistle-blowers and reward
prison officials who contained the damage at Corcoran, described as
the deadliest prison in America? Seven inmates were killed and 43
wounded over a sever-year period at a prison housing some of the
state's most violent and incorrigible prisoners. Seven officers have
been indicted for arranging gladiator-style fights between inmates.

Other investigations are continuing into charges of racial beatings of
inmates by guards, of guard-sanctioned rapes of inmates by other
inmates and of other instances where guards may have used excessive
and deadly force.

There were serious problems in the prisons, especially at Corcoran,
and these problems raised scant concern among top corrections
officials, other than to protect their backsides. Investigation by
local district attorneys were hampered by the refusal of guards to
testify and by insistence that union representatives by present for
all interviews.

Others who witnessed improper behavior testified last week that they
were never interviewed by the appropriate authorities or, if they were
or if they went to the FBI, they were hounded, harassed and threatened
by colleagues and superiors. If there was no coverup or white wash,
there certainly appears to have been a concerted effort by some to
sweep things under the rug.

Prisons are bad places, inhabited by bad people. Correctional officers
have a tough and often dirty job, although their union, which
contributed some $1 million to Wilson and Lungren and more to many
others over the years, has won them rich packages of pay and benefits.
Their pay raises over the past decade far exceed those of other state
workers, indicating that the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association is the favorite union of a famously antiunion governor.
Meanwhile, the public attitude most often appears to be: Put the bad
guys away, do what you have to do and don't bother us with the details.

But the details that have emerged from these articles and hearings are
too outrageous to ignore. It is troubling that poorly trained prison
guards can shoot and beat inmates with seeming impunity; that a rich
and powerful union can successfully quash investigations through its
members' refusal to cooperate; and that higherups in the Department of
Corrections can apparently intimidate the whistle-blowers and ignore
complaints of horrendous behavior until they are forced to acknowledge
them.

Corcoran is a safer place now than it was in the mid-1990s. And Cal
Terhune, the new head of corrections, does seem to be making a
serious effort to clean up the system.

"The biggest mistake California government made." Terhune told The
Sacramento Bee's, "was when the prison boom started, it didn't do one
damn thing for internal affairs. There was a massive staff increase, a
green staff. They made stupid mistakes, and there was no way to
investigate them."

In another meeting with the Bee, Lungren said, "If you ask me how to
prevent it, you start on the front end, not the back end, and put more
money into the prison system. Not just bricks and mortar, but
recruitment and longer training. Six weeks is not sufficient. You need
continuing education and better training of supervisors. It takes money."

Lungren, as a conservative Republican, is thus in the anomalous
position of advocating that we "throw money" at the problem. Alas, it
will take far more than money to cure what ails California prisons.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Supermax' Prisons Typify US Attitudes On Crime
(According To 'The Chicago Tribune,' The Minimum-Contact,
'Supermax' Prison Epitomized By The Federal 'ADX' Penitentiary
In Florence, Colorado, Illustrates The Growing Popularity Of A Costly,
Profound Reversal In American Attitudes - For Most Of This Century,
Rehabilitation Was The Overarching Goal, But By 1980, The People
Who Manufacture Consensus In America Enbraced Mandatory Minimum
Sentencing, Removing Exercise Equipment, Barring Pell Grants For Inmates'
Higher Education, And, Finally, Implementing Solitary Confinement
Throughout Entire Prisons, Causing Severe Psychiatric Harm)

Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 00:21:34 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CO: `Supermax' Prisons Typify U.S. Attitudes On Crime
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 2 Aug 1998
Author: Lisa Anderson, Chicago Tribune

`SUPERMAX' PRISONS TYPIFY U.S. ATTITUDES ON CRIME

FLORENCE, Colorado -- If, as some philosophers maintain, nothing tells more
about a society than its treatment of prisoners, the proliferating
supermaximum security prisons speak eloquently of the fears and attitudes
about crime in American.

This minimum-contact, so-called ``supermax'' concept is epitomized in the
United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in
Florence. Inmates call it the Alcatraz of the Rockies. Advocates call it
unfortunate but necessary, given an increasingly violent prison population.
Critics call it a concept that didn't work in 19th-century America and is
in danger of overuse now.

``The question isn't who these prisoners are, the question is who we are,''
said Ben Wolf, of the American Civil Liberties Union's prisons project in
Illinois.

The growing popularity of the costly approach, particularly among states,
represents a profound reversal in American attitudes. For most of this
century, rehabilitation was the overarching goal.

By 1980, however, frustrated by growing crime and rising drug-related
convictions, society supported mandatory minimum sentencing, removing
exercise equipment from prisons, barring Pell grants for inmates' higher
education, and, finally, entire prisons of mostly solitary confinement.

``I think we as a nation are becoming more punitive, and I think we seem to
have a real faith in punishment as something that will work to deter crime.
I think the greater thing is that we just want to get retribution and
revenge,'' said Kevin Wright, a professor of criminal justice at the State
University of New York at Binghampton.

In the arid, remote high desert, the triangular, two-story, high-tech ADX
is almost invisible, as are its 417 male inmates. Many spend 23 of every 24
hours double-locked in an 8-by-12-foot cell behind a steel door and barred
grate. Some spend the day's remaining hour alone as well, exercising in a
small concrete recreation area and subjected to strip searches upon leaving
and re-entering their cells. Except for the guards, there is no direct
human contact.

``One of the fundamental effects it has is on the human senses: sight,
touch, smell, taste. It restricts your world, puts it in a vise really,''
said Raymond Luc Levasseur, 51, serving 40 years for bombings and attempted
bombings in the 1970s.

Speaking through a microphone set in a plexiglass window, he said, ``How
much abuse do you want to put on a person you're going to be with in an
elevator someday or get into an argument with at an intersection? This is
America. What kind of country do you want to live in?''

John Hurley, warden at ADX, observed that the shift in emphasis from the
``medical model of rehabilitation to a more reality-based approach'' of
corrections reflects society's desires.

According to a 1995 survey conducted by the College of Criminal Justice at
Sam Houston State University, in Texas, when asked if the government needed
to put a greater effort into rehabilitating or punishing and putting away
those convicted of violent crimes, the vast majority of respondents opted
for punishment.

The United States locks up a higher proportion of its citizens than any
other industrialized country. In 1980, 20 federal prisons held 30,000
inmates, compared with 94 prisons with 100,000-plus inmates and a $3.3
billion annual budget today.

``The notion that ADX is the future of corrections is entirely wrong. It is
reserved only for the most predatory and violent inmates,'' said Todd
Craig, spokesman for the federal Bureau of Prisons, noting that supermax
inmates account for only 0.5 percent of the total 100,000-plus federal
prison population.

ADX may be an anomaly in the federal prison system, but its model clearly
has become a trend in state corrections.

Already, there are 60 ADX-style state facilities. Most, such as the $73
million, 4-month-old supermax in Tamms, Ill., have opened since 1990; more
are on the way.

Few critics deny the need for some facility designed to separate dangerous
inmates from the prison staff and other inmates. However, many question if
the appropriate people are being put into these prisons.

Stuart Grassian, an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and
expert on the effects of solitary confinement, said: ``My conclusion is
that prolonged solitary confinement causes severe psychiatric harm, even
among people who had previously suffered no severe psychiatric problems.''

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuanced Welcome In The Hamptons (A 'New York Times' Article
In 'The San Jose Mercury News' Notes Parenthetically
That A Marijuana-Law Protester Haunted President Clinton's
Recent Fund-Raising Trip To East Hampton, New York)

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:31:29 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US NY: Nuanced Welcome in the Hamptons
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 2 Aug 1998
Author: Bruce Weber - NY Times

NUANCED WELCOME IN THE HAMPTONS

Clintons' arrival provokes low murmurs but no ordinary, tasteless traffic jams

EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. -- The Hamptons didn't exactly offer President Clinton a
red carpet and a clamorous ovation this weekend. The greeting was more
confused than that, more complicated, muted.

Yes, there were the high-profile parties, thrown by the likes of the
investment banker Bruce Wasserstein and actors Alec Baldwin and Kim
Basinger, where the president was expected to raise some $2 million for the
Democratic National Committee. And there was the hospitality of Steven
Spielberg, who offered his Georgica Pond estate to the president and his
wife. But those were the celebrities and big-money folks who give the
Hamptons their reputation and cachet. The ordinary affluent weekenders who
give the Hamptons their crowds and soaring real-estate prices, and the
year-rounders, who generally can't wait for September, responded with a
more layered enthusiasm. Glamour and power are no big deal here; they come
with the territory.

The biggest welcoming sign was on the side of the Stephen Talkhouse, a
music club in Amagansett, where Jefferson Starship, a band from the era
when Clinton was not inhaling marijuana, played Friday night. The enormous
sign, on behalf of a 17-year-old chef at the club, Eiji Shiga, read:
``Welcome Bill and Hillary, Please help keep our friend, Eiji, out of
jail.''

Hoping for leniency

Eiji, who is awaiting sentencing for a series of robberies, is a
well-spoken young man who admits he deserves to go to prison but who hopes
for a lenient sentence.

``Maybe he'll see the sign, say, `What's up with that?' and stop in,'' Eiji
said of the president.

Whatever the reason, Route 27, the main east-west road through the South
Fork of Long Island, was uncharacteristically unclogged Friday.

Though it was the site of the Basinger-Baldwin and Wasserstein bashes, as
well as the president's weekend radio address, Amagansett, which is sleepy
to begin with, never really woke up. And maybe most amazing, downtown East
Hampton and Sag Harbor, ordinarily mobbed with shoppers, have both been
reasonably navigable.

Of course, no place is so inured to glitz and indulgence that the president
fails to make an impression. Friday, when he arrived at East Hampton
Airport by helicopter from Westhampton (where Air Force One had landed), a
crowd of maybe 200 people had pulled their cars off Route 27 and waited for
a glimpse of his motorcade.

It was an amused gathering on the roadside, including Michael Silberkleit,
publisher of Archie Comics, whose wife, Nancy, wore an oversize Archie
head; Corey Watson, a California college student working as a summer pool
man, who held a small sign that said ``Legalize Marijuana''; and the
housekeeping and maintenance staff of financier Ronald Perelman, whose
driveway opens on to the motorcade route.

On the street, in restaurants, it was easy to overhear the conversations
about Clinton, his sex life and whether he lied about it and encouraged
others to do so.

``I've always said, even if she catches you in bed with the sheets down,
say, `Honey, you got it wrong,' '' said Derek Ford, who may or may not have
been joking. ``It's very hard, if you're a man in a powerful position, to
say `No, no, no' to all the opportunities,'' said Ford, who owns a chain of
women's clothing stores in Canada. ``I've been married four times for that
reason.''

Speculation, lamentation

Speculations over what went on between the president and Monica Lewinsky,
the former White House intern, often led to head-shaking lamentations over
the fact that alleged sex acts have become the focus of a special
prosecutor investigating the nation's chief executive.

For many the issue is not whether there was sex play in the White House,
but whether it matters.

``I think it's outrageous, it's sexual McCarthyism,'' said David Oestreich,
a New York City businessman who was a house guest in East Hampton.

The opposite view was expressed on a roadside billboard in front of the
Southampton Full Gospel Church, where each week a line of scripture is
posted for the benefit of weekenders arriving in the Hamptons on Route 27.
This week's selection is from Hebrews: ``Whoremongers and adulterers, God
will judge.''

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Objection, Mr Straw (Trevor Grove, Author Of 'The Juryman's Tale,'
Writes In Britain's 'Independent On Sunday' That Labour Prime Minister
Tony Blair And Home Secretary Jack Straw Are Reviving A Conservative Proposal
To Curtail The Right To Choose A Trial By Jury)

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 23:48:25 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: UK: OPED: Objection, Mr Straw
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Pubdate: Sun, 02 Aug 1998
Source: Independent on Sunday
Contact: Email: letters@independent.co.uk
Mail: Independent on Sunday, 1 Canada Square
Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL England
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Author: Trevor Grove

OBJECTION, MR STRAW

The right to choose trial by jury is an integral part of our democracy - or
so Labour insisted when the Conservatives proposed to curtail it. Now, keen
to cut costs, Blair's Government is reviving the very same idea.

TONY BLAIR never said "the jury system is safe in our hands". He hardly
needed to. Trial by jury is the very essence of our democracy, or, as Lord
Devlin said, "Every jury is a little Parliament"; and when the then Home
Secretary, Michael Howard, prompted by the recommendations of the 1993
Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, proposed to curtail the right to
choose trial by jury, Jack Straw led the catcalls. The proposal was
"unfair, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective", he spluttered.

As things stand, and have stood since Victorian times, those accused of a
wide range of lesser offences, such as shoplifting or indecent assault, can
choose whether to have their cases heard summarily, in a magistrates' court,
where sentences tend to be lower, or before a jury in a crown court, where
acquittal rates are higher. Under Home Office proposals published last
Tuesday, with the apparent approval of Mr Straw, defendants would no longer
have that choice. The magistrates would take the decision.

It is a breathtaking volte-face,and it is already evident that Mr Straw
will, like his predecessor, meet with stubborn opposition Much of it on
that occasion came from the silkiest of trade unions, the Bar Council, but
certainly not all.

This time round, the cries of "Objection!" were instantaneous. It would be
a back-door removal of jury trial, said Bruce Houlder QC, speaking for the
Bar, "a further unfortunate inroad into something which is being
marginalised all the time". The radical Legal Action Group was also quick
into the fray, reminding the Government that "the defendant's right to
elect a jury trial is one of the most important rights in the criminal
justice system".

No one should have been surprised at the hubbub. Trial by jury is far from
perfect - the worst system in the world save for all the others, it is
often said. But our attachment to the jury system in this country is an
article of faith and attempts to diminish its role raise hackles right
across the political spectrum.

IT HAS to be said that there are good arguments for reducing the large
number of apparently piffling cases that go before juries. The theft of a
bottle of milk from a doorstep could in theory lead to a full crown court
trial. The cost would be at least five times greater than if the case were
heard by magistrates; estimates put the average contested jury trial at
UKP13,500, against UKP2,500 for a magistrate's court case. The prospect of
massive savings has reawakened the Home Office's zeal for reform and caused
Mr Straw to think again.

It is also true that experienced crooks exploit the system, banking on a
jury's good-heartedness and lack of experience to get them off. When I
wrote a book about the jury system last year I encountered a widespread
belief that this was so - especially among the police. In such cases this
was not justice, they pointed out. Nor is it.

By the same token, many wrongly charged defendants also get the benefit of
the doubt - a benefit that might not be so readily available from a trio of
case-hardened JPs, whose conviction rate is almost double that of juries.
To be charged with stealing a packet of prawns or goosing a ballgirl at
Wimbledon might seem of no great moment to some, but it could spell the end
of their worlds if the accused were a schoolteacher or a clergyman, people
whose livelihoods depended on their reputations.

"If you were charged with shoplifting a box of chocolates and you hadn't
done it, what would you do?" asks former judge Sir Stephen Tumim. He has no
doubt. He would rather be judged by a jury than by magistrates, who have
seen too much of human nature always to think the best of it.

For all its imperfections, the jury system is a precious institution, a
valuable ingredient in national self-esteem. To tinker with it merely for
the sake of good housekeeping is to trifle with history. Whereas the
monarchy makes us subjects, the jury system defines us as citizens. It is a
safeguard against oppressive and outdated laws. It ensures that the accused
hear their trials conducted in language they understand. Above all, it is a
guarantee that no one in this country can be deprived of his liberty for
more than a few months without 12 of his fellow-citizens agreeing to it.

About 22,000 cases a year would be affected by the abolition of the right
to choose jury trial in "either-way" cases. To put that in a wider
perspective, the vast majority of criminal cases in England and Wales, at
least 93 per cent of them, are heard in magistrates' courts. That leaves at
most 7 per cent of defendants to be tried by juries. Of that 7 per cent,
the 22,000 represent less than a quarter.

Nevertheless, it is not hard to imagine the kind of misfortune that could
lead to an otherwise blameless person being one of those accused. As an
ex-juror, I would be alarmed at being refused the option of a jury trial in
such circumstances. I have sat in the jury box on short trials at Southwark
and an immensely long one at the Old Bailey. In each case I was impressed
by how such a random collection of involuntary volunteers rose to the
occasion and strove to reach a fair verdict.

My conclusion is that most juries treat their task with remarkable
conscientiousness. The newly ennobled Helena Kennedy QC agrees. "Juries use
their sixth sense, their sense of smell. They sniff the air and get a
feeling about whether people are truthful or reliable. They may go in with
a whole set of prejudices, but what always impresses me is that they can
filter them out. They can make subtle distinctions. You can see the effect
in the verdict, when they find a defendant guilty on some counts of the
indictment but not on others. Collectively this group of people is better
than the sum of its parts."

IT IS TRUE that the acquittal rates are much higher when juries and not
magistrates are in the seat of judgment. But that is what you would expect.
Members of the jury, you must decide "so that you can be sure", says the
judge. "Beyond reasonable doubt," adjures the counsel. Those are mighty
obstacles in the path of a carelessly considered conviction.

In spite of the arguments for keeping the jury system as it is, some form
of change regarding these "either-way" cases now seems unstoppable - just
as it seems clear that juries will one day be removed from complicated
fraud cases and be replaced by tribunals. Mr Howard's Home Office was
forced to rein in on both these reforms. But there are few checks on New
Labour, especially when Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor, is cracking the
whip.

If it is to be left to magistrates to decide on the form of trial in
"either-way" cases, I would recommend that in such instances the bench
ought to have before it the defendant's criminal record, should he have one
(as many do). Anyone without a record - who therefore has a reputation to
defend - should automatically be allowed to opt for trial by jury. That way
the benefit of the doubt which juries notoriously afford the man or woman
in the dock would apply where it was most properly due.

I am surprised to be writing about this subject today. Less than a year
ago, as I was finishing The Juryman's Tale, I wrote this: "The present
government, needless to say, has no plans to carry on where the reviled
Howard left off - yet. But the 'either-way' saga clearly shows that, for
all the lip service paid to it, the jury system in this country is by no
means invulnerable. The warning words of the great 18th-century judge and
jurist Sir William Blackstone are sure to be invoked again before the new
millennium is very old.

"He warned of the lure of new and arbitrary methods of trial: 'However
convenient these may appear at first . let it again be remembered that
delays and inconvenience in the forms of justice are the price that all
free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters . and
that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and
spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous
concern."

Though it hasn't waited for the new millennium to re-survey the sacred
bulwark, I don't think this is what the Government has in mind. But great
edifices are eroded from the outside. It would be ironic if, just as
countries such as Russia, Spain and Japan are turning to the jury system as
a better means of doing justice, New Labour started knocking bits off it in
order to save on the upkeep bills.

Trevor Grove is the author of 'The Juryman's Tale' (Bloomsbury).

A Model For Much Of The World

THE ENGLISH jury system has been exported across the globe, writes Trevor
Grove. It flourishes in Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is
hanging on in Hong Kong. Many Commonwealth countries abolished it for
tribal or dictatorial reasons but Malawi has brought it back.

Nowhere is it more highly revered than in the United States, where Sidney
Lumet's film Twelve Angry Men virtually has the status of a sacred text.

France has its own jury system, as does Scotland. Russia, Spain and Japan
are all considering the introduction of juries modelled on Britain's.
Scotland has 15-person juries and the seldom-used option of the "not
proven" verdict. In France, serious cases are heard by three judges and
nine jurors. All 12 retire together to consider both the verdict and the
sentence (an idea that might appeal to our own law-enforcers).

In other countries with jury systems, the English model prevails, with
variations. In New Zealand and most states in Australia, verdicts must be
unanimous, although there are moves to introduce majority verdicts, as
here, because of the high rate of hung juries.

In the US, too, the majority of states insist on unanimity - and not just
for offences carrying the death penalty - despite the numerous mis-trials
that result.

In England and Wales, peremptory challenges of potential jury members are
no longer allowed. In general, the jury you get is the jury you are stuck
with. But in the US, prosecution and defence lawyers have a generous
allowance of peremptory challenges and employ high-earning jury consultants
to help them. The result is that juries sometimes take months to pick, and
often end up looking "stacked" - as in the first O J Simpson trial.

In the US, juries also try big civil cases. Despite plentiful evidence that
jurors are often out of their depth in the cross-currents of commercial
law, millions of dollars hang on their verdicts. On the other hand
defendants can be tried by a judge alone, if they choose, which many do.

Three US states - New York, Arizona and Massachusetts - now insist that
jury service should be universal. Everyone must do it if summoned, except
in the direst circumstances. That is something the UK would do well to
emulate. Far too many professional and middle-class people find it easy to
avoid their stint in the jury box - and then complain that juries are too
ignorant to reach a reliable verdict.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]