DISMAY AT THE DRUG LAWS

Michael Massing ["Jurors to State Drug Laws: Throw 'em Out," Viewpoints,
Jan. 10] correctly points out that an unfortunate side effect of frustrated
potential jurors expressing their disgust with the draconian drug laws in
New York is the elimination of those who speak their conscience from
serving on juries in drug cases, resulting in even greater unfairness.
People who care about the laws they live under are either precluded from
expressing their dismay at the injustices of the system, or they are
excluded from participating in the very process that they have a duty and,
some would say, a privilege to be a part of.

There is a solution to this problem.

Jurors can use discretion through the screening process and exercise their
discretion by voting "not guilty" in cases in which they believe the laws
are unjust. In our criminal justice system, any juror can vote "not guilty"
for any reason. By doing so in these cases, jurors could deal justly and
mercifully by refusing to convict low-level drug offenders while sending a
strong message to the state Legislature that the time for a change has long
since come.

Holly Catania, Manhattan

Editor's Note: The writer, an attorney, is director of the Methadone Policy
Project at the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation.