LET THE PEOPLE RULE FOR A CHANGE

A new record was set in February: There are now 2 million Americans in
jails and prisons throughout the country. This is up from only 200,000 in
1970. Fewer than one third of the prisoners have been convicted of violent
crimes.

Indeed, 400,000 of these people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug
offenses, another 750,000 for other victimless crimes.

The $40-billion-a-year expense is staggering enough, but this doesn't take
into account the lives ruined by overzealous prosecutors doing the bidding
of misinformed and pandering legislators. It's important to note that the
best-known candidates for Congress in our area are former prosecutors.

U.S. Rep. James Rogan (R-Montrose) was a county prosecutor and local judge;
state Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) was a federal prosecutor.

Instead of more prosecutors in Congress, we need representatives who will
defend peoples' liberties. There are too many laws in this country.
Whenever any problem (real or imaginary) develops, politicians start
proposing new legislation. That's how we've gotten some terribly draconian
laws (named after Draco, an ancient Greek official who decreed the death
penalty for most every offense). It's time to repeal laws, not pass new ones.

In the past, judges applied their wisdom and looked at the circumstances of
each defendant before passing sentence. Now there are often mandatory
minimum sentences for certain crimes, making judges seem useless. This is
especially true for nonviolent drug offenses, some of which should not even
be illegal.

Juries have been known to convict people of seemingly minor offenses and
then to be shocked when they find out the extremely harsh sentences that
are imposed. We must get rid of mandatory minimums.

Three-strike laws are a good idea in theory. Most people thought they were
voting to take violent felons like murderers, rapists and armed robbers off
the streets. Yet the third strike can be any felony. And today, with our
prosecutor-legislators, just about anything can be a felony. That's why our
courts have been imposing 25-to-life sentences for marijuana possession,
parole violations, petty theft (like swiping a slice of pizza) and other
minor offenses.

The punishment should fit the crime. Three-strike laws must be changed to
include only a specific list of violent offenses.

Then there's the death penalty. Whether one favors it or not, it's clear
that a number of innocent people have been executed. Even the conservative
Republican governor of Illinois, George Ryan, suspended executions in that
state when he saw how many death row inmates had been freed because they
weren't guilty.

A lot of defendants don't have fair trials with good legal representation.
There is no way to undo an execution. Life in prison without parole is a
perfectly sensible alternative that still protects society but allows
mistakes to be corrected later.

Unfortunately, Americans overwhelmingly favor the death penalty. Thus, at
the very least, we must pass proposed legislation by Sen. Patrick Leahy
(D-Vermont) that would allow a final DNA test to let death row inmates
prove their innocence if they can.

Currently, 48 states don't allow such tests. That has to change.

The court system needs to be reformed at both the state and federal level.
The jury selection process, or voir dire, actually amounts to jury
tampering on the part of both the prosecution and defense.

The first 12 jurors who don't know the parties involved and who have no
financial stake in the outcome of the case should be seated, with no other
questions asked. This is the only way to have a true cross-section of the
community.

In common law, jurors always had the right to judge the law itself, as well
as the facts in the case. This is known as "jury nullification." Jurors
often found defendants not guilty if they disliked the law in question or
felt it was unjustly applied.

In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that judges don't have to tell jurors
about this right, so none of them do. Judges coerce juries into guilty
verdicts by telling them only the black and white part of the law, not
allowing jurors to use their own common sense. Jurors need to be told of
their right to judge the law.

Another reform I support would allow jurors to set the sentence in every
case, up to the maximum allowed by law. It's likely that child molesters
and other violent criminals would receive longer sentences, and those
charged with "victimless crimes" would get much lighter sentences. After
all, if jurors are considered capable of choosing life or death in capital
cases, or damages in civil cases, why aren't they capable of choosing
probation, 5 years, 10 years or another appropriate sentence in other
criminal cases?

Our current leaders don't want any of these reforms because power would go
back to the people. Politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, Sacramento
and our local city halls all want more power over us. That's why we need to
elect representatives with a different point of view - a Libertarian point
of view - before it's too late.