Pubdate: Fri, 08 Jun 2012
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Copyright: 2012 Sun-Times Media, LLC
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/5QwXAJWY
Website: http://www.suntimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/81
Author: Rich Miller

TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT DRUG LAWS

I want to say right off the bat without any hesitation or 
equivocation whatsoever that I happen to like prosecutors and cops. I 
respect and honor their difficult jobs. I couldn't do what they do, 
so I'm glad they're there for me and everyone else.

But as much as I revere them, as much as I respect them, I believe 
they've had far too much power over the state legislative process.

For instance, some very well-intentioned, decent people have been 
trying to pass a medical marijuana bill here for years. Law 
enforcement always stops it dead in its tracks. Why? Well, the 
answers range from "We'd be sending the wrong message to children," 
to "marijuana is a bad thing." And you can forget about trying to 
decriminalize or, heaven forbid, legalize marijuana possession.

For crying out loud, our last three presidents smoked pot, and their 
lives seemed to work out OK. But imagine if one of them had been 
busted for possessing a joint back in college. History would've been 
changed. Pot doesn't usually kill political careers, but pot arrests sure do.

This spring, an attempt was made to finally put some teeth into the 
state Constitution's protection of victims' rights. Prosecutors were 
dead set against it. When Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez 
testified against the constitutional amendment, she couldn't say 
exactly why she opposed it except to claim that parts of it were too 
vague. But she also couldn't say what could be done to make the 
proposed language less vague.

The fight was over the rights of victims who've been shunted aside by 
the system. The Illinois Constitution guarantees that victims have a 
right to be notified of court proceedings, the right to speak at 
sentencing, the right to know when their attacker is being released 
from prison and the right to have an advocate present at all court 
proceedings, among other things.

What the Constitution doesn't contain, though, is any recourse if 
those rights are denied. They specifically can't appeal to a higher 
court, for instance. So their rights can be ignored and nothing happens.

Most prosecutors treat victims well, but some don't, and that's just 
a fact of life. Supporters of the constitutional amendment produced 
reams of letters from victims whose rights had been ignored. But 
prosecutors refused to negotiate a reasonable compromise, and the 
proposal died.

But the coppers may have finally overstepped when they fought a 
proposal to decriminalize audio recording of police in public areas. 
Right now, if you use your iPhone to video a cop being shot at by a 
crack dealer, you can be charged with a felony and sentenced to 15 
years in prison.

The police complained that citizens would be interfering with their 
jobs and worried that video and audio could be altered to make them 
look bad. But even after those complaints were dealt with, the police 
still stood firm against the bill. The House took the rare step of 
overriding police objections and passed the legislation, but it 
stalled in the Senate when the cops persuaded Sen. Michael Noland 
(D-Elgin) to sit on it. Noland said he believed the police ought to 
be able to videotape citizens pretty much at will but that the 
House-approved proposal would create "bad law." His eventual 
counterproposal was literally laughed off the Senate floor when he 
tried to bring it up for a vote.

Law enforcement should most definitely be listened to whenever 
legislators address criminal matters. But no group, no matter how 
important or vital, should ever have automatic legislative veto 
power. Opposing that bill was a big mistake, but it may finally open 
the door to some much-needed balance between the rights of citizens 
and the powers of law enforcement.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom