PUNISHMENT MUST FIT THE CRIME

To the Editor of THE EAGLE --

As the first trial of the "Great Barrington 18" approaches, it seems
all-the-more important to reflect on the ramifications of the
decision by the district attorney to prosecute all of those arrested
under the "school-zone" enhanced sentencing provision, regardless of
the severity of the alleged criminal conduct and the absence or
presence of prior criminal history. Mr. Capeless is widely considered
to be an intelligent and dedicated public servant, but in this case,
at least, he seems to have forgotten the traditional dual
responsibilities of a prosecutor. Whereas, under long-established
Anglo-American principles of criminal jurisprudence, defense
attorneys have as their sole function the dedicated, one might say,
single-minded, representation of their clients, the state,
represented by the district attorney, has two roles: he must not only
represent the interests of the citizens he serves, but he is also
charged with the responsibility to see that justice is done. Both
are equally important, for it is the quality of justice that is
dispensed that in large measure defines us as a civilized society.

In Saudi Arabia, the penalty for someone stealing a loaf of bread,
even if that is what is necessary to feed a starving family, is the
lopping off of the offending arm. Surely, Mr. Capeless would agree
that in some instances, the just result at the end of a prosecution
is not necessarily the conviction of the defendant, if the result is
a penalty that is much harsher than what justice demands.

If Mr. Capeless finds himself, for whatever reason, unwilling or
unable to do what the district attorneys in virtually all of the
other counties of this commonwealth have done, that is, to decline
to prosecute under the Draconian provisions of the "school-zone"
law, then it is incumbent upon the jurors who will decide these
cases to determine if the punishment fits the crime. Can anyone
reasonably argue that two years confinement to prison is an
appropriate penalty for the transfer of a single marijuana cigarette
by an unthinking, immature teenager to an undercover law enforcement officer?

Who gains by this result?

There are surely other remedies, indeed harsh ones -- for example,
long hours of community service which could benefit other young
people at risk -- that would not have such a ruinous effect on the
lives of our young people who are just embarking on what will
hopefully be a long and upward journey of discovery and self-realization.

CARL STEWART

Alford

Note: The writer is a former federal prosecutor, having served in the
administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter.