DEATH NOT ANSWER FOR CRACK ADDICTS

I read a May 1 news story written by Val Walton profiling U.S. District
Judge Inge Johnson, the judge who handled the Securities and Exchange
Commission's case against Richard Scrushy. There is one sentence in this
article that got my undivided attention: "Johnson gained notice as a
circuit judge for overruling a jury and sentencing a man to death for
murdering a woman and her two daughters."

I was the foreman of the jury who delivered the jury's recommendation of
life in prison without parole.

I am not writing this essay to question whether Johnson's decision to
overrule the jury was based on her desire to receive notoriety, although
she has since received promotion to the federal bench. But I am writing
this article to qualify the basis for the decision made by the jury. And,
hopefully, the judge will hear.

There was no doubt in any of the jurors' minds that Alonzo Burgess
committed this crime. There were more than 50 articles of evidence that
convicted him. The main sticking point for the jury was whether Burgess was
a victim of his environment. Burgess was a crack cocaine addict. We, the
jury, questioned whether Burgess was responsible for the availability of
crack cocaine in his environment. We, the jury, answered no.

I would like for Johnson to understand that there is a serious problem with
crack cocaine in the black community. I just recently lost a family member
to crack cocaine. No, he's not dead. But he can no longer function as a
complete human being. Putting crack cocaine addicts to death is not a solution.

Robert L. Benjamin

Powderly