COUNCIL VOTES TO USE TV TO AIR THOSE ARRESTED FOR DRUGS

Amid passionate objections that the measure would trample civil rights and
drive some people to suicide, the City Council yesterday passed a resolution
to put the photographs, names, and hometowns of those arrested for buying or
selling drugs on cable television.

Although the city already puts those arrested for soliciting prostitution on
the municipal cable channel, several councilors said that reputations could
be ruined, that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that the
"scarlet letter" approach would not reduce drug activity.

But Council President James M. Kelly, who proposed the idea last year and
took the unusual step of relinquishing his gavel three times to plead for
its passage, said, "I want to tarnish their reputations. I want to embarrass
them. I guess you could call it peer pressure.

"I want to see who these people are who are destroying our neighborhoods,"
Kelly said in an impassioned speech on the floor of the council chamber.
"Everything else that has been done in this war on drugs has failed. I'm not
going to shrug my shoulders while my neighborhood is destroyed."

Sensing that the resolution was going down to defeat, Councilor at Large
Stephen J. Murphy urged his colleagues to use "common sense" and back the
measure. "What kind of message are we going to send if we don't support
this? Come on," he said.

The resolution passed 8-5. Councilor Maura A. Hennigan (Jamaica Plain) was
the deciding vote to swing the momentum Kelly's way. Councilor at Large
Peggy Davis-Mullen, while at first arguing that drug users would be unduly
punished for what is often a sickness and an addiction, joined Hennigan
after an amendment was adopted barring the broadcast of the name of anyone
17 or younger.

But the two-hour debate preceding the vote was marked by an unusually
broad-ranging discussion of civil liberties, the American justice system,
and the best way to tackle the city's drug problem.

Councilor Gareth R. Saunders (Roxbury) said putting people arrested for
drugs on TV would not reduce drug activity. "Show me the proof that
plastering faces on the TV screen is a deterrent," he said. "People have
addictions. They need clinical help. This is like using an Uzi to kill a
rabbit."

Councilor Daniel F. Conley (Hyde Park), a former prosecutor, said not all
people arrested for drugs are guilty. He suggested putting only those who
are convicted on TV.

Kelly and Murphy said lawyers for cable television and the Boston Police
Department said putting those arrested in drug offenses on TV would
withstand legal challenges. "Boston newspapers do this all the time," Kelly
said.

But Conley said, "Maybe it's permissible. But is it right? "

Councilor Maureen E. Feeney (Dorchester) said she worries that a young
person arrested for drugs could be driven to suicide by the embarrassment of
being on television. "There's no retreating when someone's good name is
lost," she said.

To address the concerns, an amendment was added requiring that the names of
those acquitted be re-broadcast.

The names and photographs of those arrested would be put on the municipal
public-access channel, A-24 on the Boston cable system, Kelly said, possibly
as early as January.

Jacque Goddard, spokeswoman for Mayor Thomas M. Menino, said the mayor was
"generally supportive of the idea" but is asking department heads to look
into it. She said the mayor's action is required for the program to move
forward.

"This resolution itself won't make anything happen. It reflects the
sentiment of the City Council," Goddard said. "He's going to ask his
department heads to look into it. But we have a lot of questions about the
legality, the logistics and the cost to the city."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts late yesterday said it
opposes the resolution, citing the presumption of innocence as "a basic
tenet of our criminal justice system, which is violated when suspects are
held up to public ridicule and humiliation before they can exercise their
rights to due process in a court of law."

"This is an `Alice in Wonderland' approach to criminal justice," said John
Roberts, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "First the
punishment and then the trial. It is disappointing that the Boston City
Council could have such disregard for the constitutional rights of its
citizens."

Also yesterday, the council voted 9-3 to ask the state Legislature to
include hospitals in the law making it a felony offense to deal drugs within
1,000 feet of a school. Murphy, sponsor of the resolution, said drug-dealing
around Boston Medical Center had increased as dealers "prey on the people
who are going in for rehabilitation."

Conley objected to that resolution, saying that if hospitals were added to
the measure, there would be calls to apply the same zone around churches or
elderly housing complexes. "I would suggest there wouldn't be a patch of
land left. What's next? Supermarkets? Why don't we just declare Boston a
drug-free zone?"

Checked-by: Don Beck