DISCRIMINATION DIDN'T FACTOR INTO TULIA DRUG STING

When the Rev. Charles Kiker said, in his April 27 guest column regarding
the war on drugs, that I "opined," I was ready to come out swinging.

However, when I consulted the dictionary, I found he was right. I did opine.

The Rev. Kiker will probably be surprised that I, too, am critical of the
war on drugs, but not that tiny corner of it that involved the Swisher
County drug sting.

I think the law needs to be reformed. What the Rev. Kiker and I disagree on
is the means to achieve that end.

I think we should persuade Congress to amend the law. The reverend and
Citizens for Justice have chosen to attack the Swisher County
law-enforcement effort with the purpose of overturning the community's
effort to protect itself from criminal predators. The weapons Citizens for
Justice have chosen are unwarranted allegations of racial motivation and
police malfeasance.

A far more plausible and charitable explanation of the racial mix in this
sting is the contribution of blacks to drug convictions in state courts,
which the Rev. Kiker places at about 53 percent, and the entry of the
undercover agent into the black community, which was apparently
opportunistic rather than planned. Once in, he had little mobility.

That combination is certainly a more plausible explanation of why the sting
netted 80 percent blacks than racial discrimination.

According to the published docket, 27 of those charged in the sting pleaded
guilty. Eight who chose a trial by jury were all convicted.

The remainder were dismissed (five) or otherwise disposed of (six). That
doesn't speak to me of innocence. The undercover policeman and the physical
evidence (drugs) convinced the juries in all eight cases tried.

The Rev. Kiker wrote that "... (B)lacks are in prison for drug use far
disproportionately to their numbers in the population. ..."

He then cited irrelevant statistics on drug use.

If he weren't a man of the cloth, I might suspect him of conscious
deception. All those convicted in Tulia were charged with selling, not
using, drugs. I never have read of anyone given a felony sentence for
simply using drugs.

I was most disappointed that the Rev. Kiker didn't appreciate my
philosophical insight into the popular notion that a person is innocent of
a crime until proved guilty. In a moral sense, a person who commits a crime
is guilty regardless of whether it is proved.

The assumption of innocence at trial is a legal fiction designed to place
the burden of proof on the prosecution. It has the same standing in reality
as the legal fiction that a corporation is a person.

I wonder if, in the second case, the Rev. Kiker would argue that a
corporation has a soul.