JUDGE FALLS SHORT WHEN USING LOGIC

Dary Matera's column of April 17 relates that Judge Pro Tem Marc Victor, a
Mesa criminal lawyer, was fired the first day on the job for refusing to
hear drug cases. Victor, father of three children, has no time for
"victimless" crime or legislation limiting what adults can do with their
bodies.

He is considering running for county attorney on a platform which would
abolish drug laws and other "victimless" crimes. Having spent two Saturdays
in defensive driving school, I have an acquaintance with "victimless
crime." With the Victor philosophy the speed limit signs which I took as
merely suggestions could be torn down. There was no victim as a result of
my "crime." He would emphasize the prosecution of quaint, "old-school"
criminals such as murderers, thieves and rapists. This lawyerly logic
escapes me. But then, perhaps the fabled wisdom of a barrister is necessary
to the understanding. Are not the vast majority of today's crimes related
to drugs and alcohol? Aren't many prostitutes practicing to support a drug
habit? Or are these "half-vast" assumptions?

Could Victor be suggesting we ignore prosecuting junkies or those with
alcohol dependency until they commit murder or manslaughter in support of
their habit?

Would a lawyer advise a glutton to forget the diet, get obese and we'll sue
McDonald's? Or would he advise the cigarette smoker to keep smoking and
we'll sue the tobacco companies after you get lung cancer? Forget the cause
and go for the effect?

Come to think of it, a criminal lawyer would command a much heftier fee by
favoring the effect approach over the causal one. However, there must be
some logic here beyond the reach of us commoners.

Thomas Ward

Mesa