DA HURTS OFFICE, CAUSE

After sitting through the trial of Kyle Sawin, I was stunned by how out of
proportion the effort to convict him was in relation to his alleged
offense. What I saw was a teenager with no prior criminal record, accused
of selling a minuscule amount of marijuana, hardly a big-time drug dealer,
repeat offender, or threat to the community.

Not one but two of Berkshire County's most experienced assistant district
attorneys pressed the case against Kyle Sawin. The district attorney of the
entire county spent hours sitting attentively in the courtroom. I heard
multiple witnesses testify in direct contradiction to the undercover
officer's story of what happened. The only evidence, after an eight-month
investigation, was his word. There were no videos, no photos, no tape
recordings. The notion that he was professional in his investigation was
seriously undermined. The jury heard all of the testimony, unlike the
casual observer, and unanimously rendered a not guilty verdict.

The dignity and credibility of the district attorney's office has been
seriously eroded and undermined by this effort. Had the prosecution
prevailed, would this harsh punishment have made our kids safer from drugs?
Isn't that our bottom line? Aren't we doing this to protect our children?

But nationwide, experts draw the opposite conclusion from this rigid
one-dimensional approach that looks only to punishment in all cases. They
point out that this kind of rigid prosecution, which does not distinguish
between marijuana and dangerous addictive drugs like heroin,
methamphetamine and crack cocaine, can, in fact, make things worse. The
fact that serious drug abuse in Berkshire County has not decreased and is
far above the national average bears this out.

So, why do it? Why divide our community and pursue an ineffective, wasteful
policy? For some, it may satisfy their personal need to punish harshly and
to excessive lengths. But our community gains nothing through these extreme
actions. The district attorney's current policy robs us of the middle
ground — appropriate, reasonable punishment that fits the crime, and yields
an outcome that is either too severe or too lenient.

PETER GREER Great Barrington, Oct. 4, 2005