The Eagle's editorial board recently chastised AU alum and Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) Associate Director David Guard for protesting jury duty on a drug-related case due to his opposition to U.S. drug laws ("AU alum pulls stunt," April 12).
Although I concur with The Eagle regarding Guard's poor choice of protest (law-breaking), the editorial board has missed several crucial opportunities to take real stands on the issues surrounding Guard's act of civil disobedience.
Most glaringly, the editorial board failed in its opportunity to indict and denounce the War on Drugs itself. Guard gave the editorial board the perfect opportunity to take a real stand on an issue that Democrat and Republican administrations alike have ignored: The failed, harmful, and destructive War on Drugs. Instead of addressing the issue, the editorial board failed in its mission to editorialize. There was simply no controversy in the board's opinion that David Guard shouldn't have broken the law. Who is going to stand up for Guard and say that he should persist in law-breaking? There's little doubt in the minds of most Americans, researchers and even politicians that the War on Drugs has not only been a public policy failure but also that it has resulted in an increase in drug use, police corruption, organized crime, racial profiling and property seizure through asset forfeiture. These are the issues that a good editorial board would address.
Similarly, the board could have taken a stand on issues relating to trials by jury. Although the editorial board was correct that Guard would likely have been dismissed for his opposition to the War on Drugs, why didn't the editorial board take the question one step further: Why should a law-abiding (obviously not the case in Guard's circumstance, but predominantly the case in situations where jurors are dismissed based on their political views) U.S. citizen be thrown off of a jury for being skeptical and independent? Indeed, the right to trial by jury exists for a single reason: to limit the power of government. U.S. citizens, as potential jurors, should remember that the role of a juror is not to be complacent or compliant, but skeptical and independent. Jurors must know that they have the option and the responsibility to render a verdict based on their conscience, sense of justice and on the merits of the law. "Jury nullification of law" (or jury nullification, for short), as it is sometimes called, is a traditional American right defended by our founding fathers. Their intent was that the jury serve as one of the tests a law must pass through before it assumes enough popular authority to be enforced. Our constitutional designers saw to it that each enactment of law must pass the scrutiny of these tribunals (juries) before it gained the authority to punish those who choose to violate any written law.
Despite the fact that state constitutions in Maryland, Indiana, Oregon and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the rights of jurors to "judge" or "determine" the law in "all criminal cases," it's unlikely that a judge overseeing a court case in which you are the juror will inform you of the intent of juries or the reason for which they exist. Instead, expect the judge to tell you that you may consider "only the facts" of the case and you are not to let your conscience, your opinion of the law or the defendant's motives affect your decision.
Twenty states currently include jury nullification provisions in their constitutions in the free speech sections, in regard to libel cases. Juries have the obligation to judge the validity and morality of the law as well as the facts under which a defendant is being tried. Similarly, the jury has the power to judge the law as well as the evidence and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. The jury should serve as the community check on bad laws through the use of jury nullification; unfortunately, however, with jurors who aren't fully informed by judges, juries often fail to serve their necessary function.
I'm hopeful that the editorial board of this newspaper will do a better job in the future. Taking genuine stands on substantive issues that may be controversial and may involve risk is what newspapers do. Let's see a boost in critical, hard-line, thought-provoking or independent editorials.
