DRUG PROBLEMS VS. DRUG MONEY PROBLEMS (41)< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
As all sophisticated people know, life is full of distinctions. One of those critical distinctions that we will discuss today is the difference between drug problems, and there certainly are many, as opposed to drug money problems.
There is no doubt that illicit drugs can sometimes be dangerous and addictive and cause harm. Many people’s health and lives have been ruined, and families torn apart emotionally and financially because of the havoc caused by the abuse of and addiction to illicit drugs. So without question this is a big problem.
But there are also big problems that are caused exclusively by drug money. For example, for years we have been hearing and reading about the large-scale violence and corruption that takes place with drug dealers in Colombia, Mexico, Afghanistan and many other countries. And certainly the United States has had its share of this violence and corruption as well. These problems are not caused by the drugs themselves, they are caused by the drug money.
Similarly, it is drug money that is causing drug-addicted people to commit crimes in order to get the money for their drugs. Obviously that includes burglaries, purse-snatchings, check offenses, shop-liftings, and prostitution. As a practical matter, all of the illicit drugs themselves are extremely inexpensive to raise, manufacture and package. In fact they are actually “dirt cheap.” The only reason they are expensive is because they are illegal, and that expense causes many crimes.
For example, marijuana is not called a “weed” for nothing. It will grow virtually anywhere. In fact, for all of our efforts for its eradication, marijuana is presently the largest cash crop in California. (Number two is grapes, if you care.) And even though the DEA has gone to great lengths to convince us that the opium poppy can only be grown in mountainous regions, the National Park Service was actually growing those poppies for years at Thomas Jefferson’s home in Monticello before the DEA found out about it and made them take them out. (They are a beautiful flower.) So if the opium poppies will grow in Virginia, it is pretty obvious that they will grow anywhere.
But now I want to talk to you about another drug money problem that you probably are not aware of. The following scenario would take place in my courtroom about every four or five weeks when I was sitting on a Juvenile Court calendar. There would be, for example, a single mother of two small children who made a bad decision, namely she decided to hook up with the wrong boyfriend. The man would be selling drugs and the mother would generally be aware of it, but that is the way things were.
One fine day the boyfriend would tell the mother that if she would take a package across town and give it to “Charlie,” he would give her $500 for her efforts. She would basically know the package contained drugs, but she was behind on her rent and the $500 would really help. So she would do it. And then she would be arrested and convicted for the offense of transporting drugs, and sentenced to five years in prison. Now to be honest, in today’s world being sentenced to five years in prison for transporting four ounces or so of cocaine is not an unreasonable sentence.
But let me ask you a question: when the mother is put in prison, what happens to her children? Well, that answer is easy. The mother has legally abandoned her children since she is not available to take care of them. As a consequence they would all come to me in Juvenile Court on the Abused and Neglected Children calendar.
So I would have this young mother in my court in a jail jumpsuit and handcuffs and I would tell her the truth, which was that she would not functionally be a part of her children’s lives for the next five years. At that point she would usually become misty-eyed at the realization. (Wouldn’t you?) But then I would tell her the brutal truth, which was that unless she was really lucky and either had a close personal friend or family member that was both willing and able to take custody of her children until she was released, her children would probably be adopted by somebody else by the time she got out of prison. At that point she would usually break down in tears. (Wouldn’t you?)
But if that human tragedy is not enough to break you down, I can probably dissolve you in tears as a taxpayer. Because in the first year, we will be spending upwards of $5,000 per month per child to keep them in a group home until they can be adopted by someone else. That means that in that first year we will be spending about $60,000 per child, times two children, plus an additional $25,000 to keep the mother in prison. As a result we will be spending somewhere around $145,000 in taxpayer money physically to separate a mother from her children!
And who gets to enforce this situation? I do. Of course I do it because I have sworn to uphold the law. But I do not have to do it quietly, and that is why I am passing on this story to you.
So from my experience and perspective, if we would change our drug laws to hold people accountable for their actions instead of what they put into their bodies, we would begin greatly to reduce the drug money crime. And this could be easily done by undercutting the market for the sale of illicit drugs to adults.
As was discussed in an earlier column, we could start by treating marijuana like alcohol. That would result in the savings of huge amounts of taxpayer money that are presently being spent on efforts to eradicate marijuana and to prosecute non-violent marijuana users. In addition, we could generate additional billions of dollars annually simply by taxing the sales of marijuana to adults, just like we do for alcohol. And all of this would have the substantial additional benefit of making marijuana less available for our teenagers than it is today. Why? Because illicit drug dealers don’t ask for i.d.
So what is not to like? We should pattern our conduct after most countries in Europe and start to address these problems as managers instead of moralists. This would reduce the crime, violence and corruption brought about by drug money. And then we could re-focus our efforts upon the actual drug problems themselves, like many countries are doing in Europe.
I think that everyone agrees that the federal government does not have all of the answers in this area, so why don’t we allow each state to decide what is best for its people? This is the concept of federalism upon which our great country was founded. There are viable alternatives to our present failed federal policy of Drug Prohibition, so let’s allow each state to try some alternatives. What do you think?
James P. Gray is a judge of the Superior Court in Orange County, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It – A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001), and can be reached at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net, or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
SCHOOL UNIFORMS ARE THE RIGHT CHOICE (40)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Having been raised in the public school system, my first exposure to school uniforms took place when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer teaching in the smallest town in Costa Rica that had a high school.
Some of the students in our school were the children of the “jefes” or bosses of the United Fruit Company, so they could afford more expensive school clothes, but most of them came from quite humble circumstances. But all of our schools required that their students wear uniforms, which consisted of a pair of khaki pants and white shirt for the boys, and a khaki skirt and white blouse for the girls. And that system worked wonderfully.
What were the benefits that I observed? Well, since the uniforms themselves were quite a bit less expensive than the wide array of other clothes that children would normally wear, all families could afford them. Plus students could get by on one or two pairs of clothes instead of much more. This resulted in the “have nots” being able to keep up with the “haves.” In other words, all students looked the same regardless of the income disparities. This also meant that competition in wearing more pricey “designer labels” and other exotic apparel simply disappeared. And the same was true with the more sloppy clothing.
Beyond the issue of cost, school uniforms took a great deal of pressure off the parents and the school administrators. Instead of fighting with the students about what they could not wear, there was a common understanding about what they actually would wear. This naturally reduced a great deal of the pressure on students and adults alike, and brought greater peace both to the home and to the school. An added feature was that it took the students a great deal less time to get dressed in the morning.
Importantly, I also observed the enormous benefit that school uniforms were able to keep the children younger longer. Particularly in today’s world with all of the pressures on our kids to grow up quickly, I think we can all agree that this is clearly a good thing.
For example, I never will forget the time that we had an annual high school dance at my Costa Rican high school. One of the girls present was stunningly dressed in a fairly low-cut top, short skirt and make-up. I wondered who that “looker” could be, until it dawned upon me that this was “little Leda,” one of my wonderful young ninth-grade students. Of course all of the boys were distracted by her, and vied for her attention. So if she had been allowed to wear clothes like that to school, it was clear to me that everyone’s attention level to sex and flirting would have increased dramatically, to the detriment of the entire scholastic atmosphere of the school.
Finally, but critically, most people generally tend to act in keeping with the manner in which they are dressed. If one wears sloppy attire, that person naturally tends to act more casually. But if people are dressed more formally, their actions generally tend to be more controlled and refined. So if students are wearing the uniform of their school, they will be much more likely to behave themselves as representatives of their school. In a similar fashion, they will be “dressed for learning,” and act accordingly. This also has the additional benefit of showing respect for learning, and disrespect for sloppiness.
The same is true for the rest of us. I know I have a definite tendency to act more formally and cautiously when I am wearing my working “uniform,” which is to say my judicial robe. And I venture to say that most other people have the same tendencies. If people are wearing shirts that display the name of their company on them, they are more likely to be careful about their demeanor. The same is true for men who are wearing a coat and tie, or women who are wearing more formal business attire. They tend to be more business-like than people wearing jeans and sweatshirts.
So what are the drawbacks of this program of school uniforms? From my perspective, there really is only one, and that is a limitation upon individual expression. But that is really a small price to pay for the other benefits. In fact, many people believe that this would also be a benefit in itself. The children can “express themselves” all they want to, within parental limits, once they get back home. But while they are in school, they are literally working at the most critical job of their lives, which is to get an education. This is not the time for diverting their attention to who looks more “cool” or sexy. Instead their focus should be on learning, and school uniforms strongly promote that focus.
So why aren’t more schools in our country requiring uniforms for their students? I believe that most of them would like to do so, but are hindered by resistance from the parents, who in many ways seem to be afraid of the wrath of their own children. But there is a difference between being your children’s friends, as opposed to being their parents. Appropriate wearing apparel is not a decision to be made by children; it is to be made by concerned parents.
Accordingly, in my view it is time for parents to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of school uniforms. When they do so, I believe they will decide that the benefits discussed above strongly outweigh the one so-called drawback. And then the parents should assert themselves for a program of school uniforms for the good of the education and future of all of our children.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the composer of the high school musical “Americans All” (Heuer Publishing, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
LET’S LOOK AGAIN AT NUCLEAR ENERGY (39)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
With all of the debates and even diatribes today about the harms of our oil dependency, environmental pollution and global warming, it surprises me that there have not been more open and honest public discussions about nuclear power. Why is that? In my view it is a combination of mostly needless public fear of nuclear power, and the self-interested promotions of the oil companies. So let’s look at the facts.
Today by far the largest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is the burning of coal. Why? Because it is plentiful and relatively cheap. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of coal, and today we generate a full 50 percent of our electricity from it.
But look at what this means. We now are burning about one billion tons of coal in our country every year. That is enough to fill 50 million freight train cars, and is double what we consumed in 1976. But the burning of one ton of coal spews about 3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and this produces about 40 percent of the world’s so-called greenhouse gases, and about 20 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions.
What is even worse is that coal is one of the most environmentally destructive substances we can use as a fuel. In addition to the substantial pollution problems, the EPA estimates that it kills about 30,000 people in our country alone each year as a result of diseases incurred by miners and others who work with it.
On the other hand, nuclear electric generating plants require only a few flatbed trucks every two years carrying loads of fuel rods, and these are only mildly radioactive such that they can be handled simply by using special gloves. And these rods will stay in the reactors for about six years. (Most facilities replace one-third of their rods every two years.) Yes, the replaced rods are more radioactive than before, but they can be stored in a three-foot deep water storage pool, and actually can safely remain there almost indefinitely. It is also true that a residual amount of the spent material needs special handling, but most of that could be used for other commercial purposes if only that were politically feasible.
There is no exhaust from the generating of nuclear power, no carbon emissions, nor any sulfur sludge to be carted away like that caused by the burning of coal. In fact there is no pollution at all except for some non-tainted hot water that is a by-product of the cooling process.
So what are the public fears? The two most pervasive are that the nuclear plants will blow up, and/or that they will melt down. But the first result is physically not possible, and today the second is practically impossible.
I am far from being even knowledgeable about nuclear physics. But all of the information I have seen tells me that a chain reaction resulting in an explosion can only come from “enriched” uranium, which is about 90 percent U-235. But reactor-grade uranium contains only about 3 percent U-235, so there is simply no way that it ever could explode.
Secondly, in all of our history through the years with our more than 100 nuclear reactors, none of them has ever come close to melting down. Yes it is true that Three Mile Island had problems when a valve stuck in the open position. But the security system worked at TMI and the fuel stayed within the reactor vessel. No one was killed, or even injured, although we naturally roped off the area for a time, and it was expensive to clean up the facility. So the “China Syndrome” scenario is really just a Hollywood fable.
Ah, but what about the problems at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union? Well, that certainly did melt down. But Chernobyl did not have a concrete containment structure like all reactors in our country have, and the Soviets used noticeably inferior technology that we have never used.
Much of the rest of the world seems to understand the safety and benefits of generating electricity from nuclear reactors. France turned away from oil-burning electric plants back in the 1980s when it experienced an “oil shock” due to the increase in the price of foreign oil. So when its Civaux nuclear plant comes on line within another year, France will have 56 nuclear plants that will generate about 76 percent of its electricity. This situation already allows France to export electricity to the southeastern parts of England.
Similarly, China is building two new pressurized reactors in Zhejiang Province, which is near Shanghai, that will each generate 1 million kilowatts of electricity by the year 2014. And Japan, even with its history of being the only country to have experienced the horrors of the atomic bomb, began its nuclear generating program in 1966. So now with its more than 50 reactors, Japan generates more than one-third of its electricity from nuclear reactors. Even Egypt currently has plans to build several nuclear electric generating plants.
And what are our viable options other than nuclear? The generation of power from wind-driven turbines is unreliable. For political and environmental reasons we have reduced our reliance upon hydroelectric power from 30 percent in the 1930s to only 10 percent today, and those numbers will probably continue to decline. Natural gas is a possibility because it is clean-burning and large amounts are increasingly being found in places like Russia and the Middle East. And Singapore burns natural gas for 85 percent of its electricity, so why can’t we? Well, we already import 15 percent of our natural gas from Canada, and it is hugely expensive to transport it over water. So our reliance upon natural gas for our future power generating needs is unrealistic.
So why have we lagged behind other countries in this area? Presently the only nuclear power generating facilities in California are south of us in San Onofre and at the Diablo Canyon plant near San Luis Obispo. But one of the two reactors at San Onofre has recently been closed. That reactor could have continued to operate, but politically there was no support for that to occur. And no plans are presently on file for any company to open any additional nuclear generating plants in our state.
We must do better. One of the largest threats to the security of our country is our dependence upon foreign oil. If we could utilize safe and environmentally friendly nuclear power to generate our electricity, that threat would be materially diminished.
So when people look at the facts, they will see that nuclear reactors today are environmentally friendly, less expensive, safer and better designed than ever before. Most of the rest of the world sees those facts, why don’t we?
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, is the composer of the high school musical “Americans All” (distributed by Heuer Publishing), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
ARE ATTORNEYS FRIENDS OR FOES? (38)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Okay, yes I am a member of the legal profession, and yes I agree that our profession has some problems. But by and large I am proud of my profession, and I think it is time for me to stand up for it more vocally. So please permit me to pass along to you some thoughts as you consider what to think about attorneys and the legal profession in general.
In the first place, virtually all attorneys deal in disputes and other problem areas in our society. Today we litigate many disputes that involve deeply important and emotional issues, like who will have custody of children, who will be awarded sometimes large amounts of money from someone else, whether a candidate will be able to appear on a ballot or not, where the body of a loved one will be buried when the family members do not agree, whether a real estate development project has complied with all applicable laws, or whether a potentially life-saving medicine should be pulled from the shelves of stores. The reputation of those of us in the legal profession is inescapably affected by our being involved in those difficult disputes.
For those who work as plaintiffs’ attorneys in litigation, frequently their clients are not happy with them because plaintiffs often lose their cases. Or they are not satisfied with the eventual award, or, if they are, with the time it took to procure it. With regard to representing defendants in litigation, it is a fact that no one likes to get sued. At the very least it is expensive, aggravating and takes lots of time, and attorneys frequently charge a lot of money for their time and expertise.
So one way or the other, litigation attorneys usually have unsatisfied clients on their hands, and “it is always their attorney’s fault” (or the judge’s). And that does not even begin to discuss what people think about the attorneys on the other side of their cases. So, as I often tell people, we are in the “dissatisfaction distribution business,” and that is almost literally true. And that situation adversely affects our reputation.
Even the large remainder of attorneys who do not get involved in litigation mostly deal with unhappiness in one form or another. Think of those who deal with regulatory agencies and governments at all levels, and tax attorneys. Usually they deal with bad news – it is simply a question of how bad. And when negotiating contracts, leases and other agreements, it is the other side’s attorney that is trying to procure “unfavorable” terms at your expense. So as a natural result, people often equate the attorneys representing the other side with disaffection and even bitterness.
Nevertheless, I believe people innately understand what we are up against, and that there remains an inherent appreciation of the services we render. As an example to support that belief, one evening I was attending yet another fundraising event, and I found myself sitting next to a lady at dinner who found out that I am in the legal profession. Throughout the dinner she harangued me about how the “shyster lawyers” are responsible for all kinds of things that are wrong with our society. It was amazing and quite one-sided. Finally in despair by the time of dessert I tried to change the subject by asking her if she had any children. “Oh yes,” she exclaimed proudly, “and my oldest son is in law school!”
But let me pass on to you some additional points that maybe my dinner friend and even you might not be aware of as you ponder what you think about attorneys in our community. The first point is in response to those who feel that attorneys file too many frivolous personal injury cases. You might not be aware of this, but most of these cases are taken by plaintiffs’ attorneys on a contingency basis, which is to say that the attorneys only take a negotiated percentage of what is eventually recovered. That means that unless the plaintiffs recover an award of some kind, the attorneys receive nothing on the case. As a result, since the attorneys run the risk of working for free, and even paying for costs of the lawsuit out of their own pockets, a sizeable screening process takes place in deciding what cases are filed at all by attorneys.
Another thing that people are almost completely unaware of is that attorneys as a profession routinely donate thousands of hours of “pro bono” work, which is to say that they donate their time to worthy people and causes that otherwise could not afford them. Personally I am not aware of any other profession that comes close to that type of a contribution.
Further, the legal profession polices itself diligently, to the degree that 80 percent of the state bar’s budget is spent on disciplinary inquiries. If any active judge came close to treating people like “Judge Judy” does, or any attorney were to act as is portrayed in many movies or television shows, they would soon lose their licenses to practice law. And rightfully so.
Attorneys at least in California are also required to specify in a written and signed retainer agreement what the relationships are between them and their clients before they can represent those clients in almost any litigation. And before they can bring an action for unpaid fees, the attorneys must offer neutral arbitration to their clients or former clients.
In addition, please consider the following. In my view, there are really only two ways that we can maximize the safety of products in the marketplace and justice and the realization of our expectations in our relationships with each other. One of them is through our civil justice system, with all of its imperfections. But the other is to have even greater governmental regulation of everything we do. And no one I know wants the government to be involved with even more regulation. So maybe we should appreciate what we have a little bit more, along with continuing to use our best efforts to improve the system further.
So are attorneys your friends, or your foes? In my view, the more people are aware of the facts, the more they will understand that the legal profession is a basic, valuable and necessary part of dispute avoidance, dispute resolution and securing safety and peace in the land. As such, it should be genuinely respected for the contributions it makes for us all.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe, the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
“I’M JUST A GIRL FROM CHINA” (36)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
A short time ago I was waiting at the San Jose Airport for a flight back to Orange County, and I started talking to the young lady sitting next to me. Since American Airlines had canceled our particular flight we had an extra hour to wait, so we had a nice discussion.
Her name is Alicia, and I asked her what she had been doing in San Jose. She responded that she had been attending a 3-day conference. About what? She said she is an electrical and electronics engineer, and the conference had reviewed cutting-edge developments in her field. When I said that the Silicon Valley was the logical place to come for such a conference, she told me that actually the Golden Triangle area of Irvine is catching up.
But I noticed that when Alicia was talking to me about what she had learned at the conference she was actually beaming, and I told her so. She smiled and said the things that were happening in her industry were so exciting she couldn’t wait to get back to let her fellow workers know about them. But then her boss would probably want her to give a presentation to her colleagues, and she was nervous about doing that.
I said I understood. (Actually I once saw a study that concluded that most people are more afraid of public speaking than of dying.) So since I do a fair amount of public speaking, I passed along two tips to her that I have found to be effective. The first tip she had already mastered, which is to show your audience that at least you are convinced about what you are talking to them about. If you can’t show that you are convinced, it is hard to convince others.
The second tip is if you are nervous when standing in front of a group, instead of looking right at your audience, you should actually look over their heads and pretend to yourself that you are simply talking personally to a friend in the very back of the room. Never look down because that shows a lack of confidence, but if you look over their heads everyone will actually feel that you are looking directly at them. Try it; it works!
As an example, I told her that my wonderful wife had fairly recently given the valedictorian speech when she received her doctorate of occupational therapy, and she used this suggestion successfully. In fact, during her talk I actually stood at the very back of the room and she simply looked at me. And since I moved from side to side, everyone in the audience felt that she had been looking directly at them personally. My new friend liked the idea, and said she would try it. (I recommend it to you as well.)
Alicia also told me that she had been so fortunate in being able to come to this country from China and become a citizen she wanted to give something back. In fact she had learned of a group called MentorNet that tries to mentor and motivate young people, but the slogan from MentorNet prevented her from doing so. What was that slogan? She said it is “Until women and people of color are fully represented in the fields of science and engineering, society is losing out on the talents of a vast number of potential contributors.”
Then Alicia made me beam by saying: “I could not disagree more. Here I’m just a girl from China who came to America empty handed. And now look at me and what I have today. I think this country has already given me the equal opportunity. But equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes. They focus on the wrong issue.”
So she asked me to recommend an alternative mentoring program. I recommended to her the Stay in School program that is overseen by the Nicholas Academic Center and its founder, Judge Jack Mandel, which is located at 412 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana 92701, telephone 714 834-0521. (As you may recall, the Stay in School program was the subject of a prior column.)
Are there still disparities or even discrimination in the workplace for women and people of color in our country? Okay, probably so. But there are also opportunities for everyone like never before. As a matter of fact, today I believe there are more females in law school than males, and companies of all kinds are hungry to find qualified people of color to work with them at every level of their operations. So in a lot of ways people of color who are good workers have an extra advantage over others.
In summary, I agree with my new friend Alicia. America, for all of its faults, still is a land of opportunity for people who work to get ahead. And generally people who have come over from other countries seem to appreciate our country more than those people like me who were so blessed to have been born here.
So without reducing our efforts to bring about a fully lawful and non-discriminating life in the United States, I suggest we all join with Alicia and not accept or even focus upon the contrary arguments of victimization. This is the next logical step in our progression to complete gender and racial equality.
As a result, for my part I don’t even respond to questionnaires asking for my race or ethnic background from the Red Cross when I give blood, or to other similar forms. In my view, today a person’s race is irrelevant for almost all reasons except medical, and I try to act accordingly.
This “girl from China” is now living the American Dream, and the opportunities she has are still available for people from Mexico, Indonesia, Rwanda, or anywhere else, as long as they come here legally, get their education, keep from having children out of wedlock – and work hard.
I am proud of Alicia and what she has accomplished, and I am proud of my country as we continue our march toward complete gender and color blindness. Please join us on that march.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
“LET’S REVITALIZE OUR HEMP INDUSTRY!” (35)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
“Hemp” is the name that is commonly used for the industrial (non-drug) usage of the cannabis plant, which is otherwise known as marijuana. The use of cannabis for hemp products literally goes back thousands of years, to the degree that the ancient Greek word for “canvas” was the same word as “cannabis.” In addition, hemp was also found in pottery shards that were used more than 10,000 years ago in China and Japan, and was also used in those regions for clothes, shoes, ropes and an early form of paper.
The stalk of the cannabis or marijuana plant has no THC content whatsoever, which is to say that it has no mind-altering properties at all. In fact, you could get as much of a “high” from smoking the stalk of the marijuana plant as you could from smoking the newspaper you now are reading. In addition, today’s agriculturalists can cross-pollinate the entire plant to reduce its THC level virtually to zero. Nevertheless, because it is still considered to be marijuana, it is still illegal to grow hemp in our country.
But that has not always been true. During colonial times hemp was used for large numbers of products. For example, the sails used on the USS Constitution (or “Old Ironsides”) were made from hemp, and several of the drafts of the Declaration of Independence were printed on parchment made from this same natural substance. Hemp was also used back then in the making of rope, textiles, and gunny sacks, and was even used as money from 1631 until the early 1800s.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and numbers of other famous planters had large numbers of acres planted in hemp, and Benjamin Franklin was one of the most active hemp paper merchants. In fact hemp was so useful, the first laws in the colonies addressing cannabis actually required the various townships to grow a certain amount of hemp, based upon the size of their populations.
The December 1941 edition of Popular Mechanics said that Henry Ford grew hemp on his estate, and that he had made some “plastic” cars that were composed mostly of hemp, wheat straw and sisal. In addition, it is believed that Rudolph Diesel invented the engine that bears his name to run on a variety of fuels, especially those based upon vegetable and seed oils like those found in hemp.
Today hemp can be used in thousands of commercial products. The fibers can be used for clothing like shirts and dresses, and for backpacks, shoes, sandals, wallets, hats, bedspreads, thermal insulation, animal bedding, mulch for vegetation and an almost unlimited number of other similar products. It can also be blended with silk, linen or cotton to make fine quality garments. Napoleon used hemp extensively for uniforms for his foot soldiers because of its low cost and durability, and the emperors of China frequently had it blended with silk to make their fine garments.
Hemp fibers also have many uses in the manufacture of such things as rope, twine, packaging material, paper products, plywood and carpets. Both BMW and Mercedes-Benz use biocomposites made mostly from hemp fibers in the manufacture of interior panels for some of their automobiles, and the fibers are also used today in Europe and China to strengthen cement.
Hemp seeds themselves are a significant food source, since they are highly nutritious and contain beneficial omega fatty acids, amino acids and minerals. As a result, they are now commercially available in cereals, frozen waffles, hemp tofu, and nut butter. In fact my wife recently purchased some nutritious hemp granola for me at Trader Joe’s, and it tasted quite good! It can also be used as a non-dairy milk product similar to soymilk, and as a non-dairy hemp “ice cream.”
The oil from the hemp seed has additional uses as lip balms, soaps and moisturizing agents for creams. In addition, since the hemp seed oil dries when exposed to the air, it makes a fine oil-based paint that is similar to linseed oil.
If you want to learn more, simply put the word “hemp” into a search engine on the internet, and you will be amazed at the positive things you find. But if those uses for hemp do not persuade you in themselves, try these facts. Hemp is one of the earth’s fastest-growing plants, it requires little or no pesticides, and it replenishes the soil with nutrients and nitrogen. In 1916, USDA Bulletin No. 404 stated that one acre of hemp over time produces the same amount of paper pulp as 4.1 acres of trees. And, of course, it takes about 20 years to grow the trees, but it takes only one season of 120 to 180 days to grow the hemp. Furthermore, one can obtain about 250 percent more fiber per acre from hemp than from cotton, and about 600 percent more than from flax. And, since it is so fast growing, hemp produces more energy per acre for biodiesel or alcohol fuel than corn, sugar, flax or any other crop.
So why is hemp not being manufactured and used by our merchants for these products? Well, actually it is. But under today’s federal laws, the hemp must be imported from countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Romania, and China. So, since even the countries of the European Union can grow hemp under special licenses, the United States is now the only industrialized country in the world in which it is illegal to grow hemp. This situation has been so profitable for Canada that it experienced a 300 percent growth in hempseed products in 2007 alone.
Our government’s hypocrisy in saying hemp should continue to be prohibited is dramatically demonstrated by a 14-minute movie produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1942 called “Hemp for Victory.” During World War II hemp was used extensively for military uniforms, canvas, rope and other products. But when our supplies of hemp and jute in the Philippines and Indonesia were cut off by the Japanese, the United States Government appealed through this film to all “patriotic” farmers to grow hemp.
So with pictures of our nation’s flags waiving in the breeze and our troops preparing for battle, and accompanied by the strains of songs like “Anchors Aweigh,” our farmers were instructed how and where to plant hemp, and how best to harvest it. After all, we needed “Hemp for light-duty fire hoses,” for “thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers,” for “parachute webbing for our paratroopers,” for supplying the “34,000 feet of rope for each of our United States Navy ships,” and for “countless uses on ship and shore.” “Hemp for mooring our ships!” “Hemp for tow lines!” “Hemp for Victory!”
But after the war, hemp again in the eyes of the government went back to being a prohibited substance without any practical usage of any kind.
So please help us get away from this hypocrisy and economic stupidity by convincing our government to pass a law like the following: “Any cannabis plant that has a THC content of 0.3 percent or less is legal to cultivate, harvest, possess and sell in the United States of America.” Of course, anything with a THC content above 0.3 percent would continue to be governed by whatever laws and regulations are in place for marijuana.
That new law would in itself allow these plants, seeds and fibers to be raised, harvested and used without any more state interference than now exists for raising any other products. And that act alone would reclaim an enormously profitable industry for our farmers, manufacturers, merchants and consumers.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It – A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs (Temple University Press, 2001), and can be reached at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY (34)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
In last week’s column we discussed the five traditional rationales for the implementation of the death penalty. But there are additional important facts that also affect the discussion.
One of those facts that is almost unknown by the general population is the financial cost of death penalty cases. The estimates are that it costs the taxpayer at least seven times the amount of money to have a death penalty trial, along with all of the accompanying appeals and writs of habeas corpus proceedings, than it would cost to try, convict, conduct the appeals for and actually keep the offenders in prison for the rest of their lives! People do not understand this fact. The cost of the extra investigators, attorneys, jury selection, court reporter’s transcripts and extra procedural safeguards is staggering!
Why is this process so complicated and expensive? As Justice Sims wrote in a concurring opinion in Bennett v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 344, 418 (2006), as a practical matter there really are four distinct trials in death penalty cases. The first is a trial (almost always with a jury) that addresses the possible guilt of the offender. The second trial decides the penalty of death or life without possibility of parole (LWOP) if the offender is convicted. Then the third trial is of the jurors in the case who arrived at those first two decisions in order to see if any of them was involved in any form of misconduct, such as telling other jurors about their own personal experiences in life.
The fourth trial confronts the trial attorneys who were involved in the case. The prosecutors are “tried” to see if they presented their arguments unfairly or too emotionally, and the defense attorneys are “tried” to see if by chance they did not afford the offender the effective assistance of counsel on any material issue. These trials usually take place in habeas corpus proceedings in federal courts after the state appeals have finally run their course. At this time the defense is also entitled to virtually every scrap of paper prepared by any law enforcement officer that ever had anything to do with any of the witnesses in the case.
How has this situation been allowed to get so extreme? Well, first of all we are a compassionate society, and we seem to be institutionally unwilling to allow anyone to be executed unless all avenues of innocence and mitigation have been explored.
Secondly, some people are so radically opposed to the death penalty that they have become zealous in their dedication to an exhaustive defense, or even to delay just for the sake of delay. For them it is a question of morality. Therefore no approach is too extreme if it has even the slightest hope of delaying the final outcome. And in actuality some of these seemingly extreme arguments have been successful in the past in obtaining a reprieve down to an LWOP, or even an exoneration of the underlying offense.
As a result and also as a practical matter, all cases involving the death penalty have become expensive beyond belief, and are delayed well beyond reason. In fact, I was the judge on the Preliminary Hearing in the death penalty case of a man named Teofilo Medina, who was proved in my court to have robbed four ARCO Mini Marts and thereafter to have killed the non-resisting clerks by shooting them in the back of the head at point-blank range. In short, he was a bad man.
But my hearing took place in 1987, and he was eventually convicted and sentenced to death in 1988. He has now been on Death Row for almost 20 years, and he has seven attorneys still actively working on his appeal.
This is not at all an exception. Remember Richard Ramirez, otherwise known as the “Night Stalker?” He was convicted in 1989 of 13 murders, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries. His first appeal went directly to the California Supreme Court, as is required by law. This is an enormous expenditure of resources. In fact, the Supreme Court’s statistics show that it spends about 20 percent of its time just on death penalty appeals. But even so, Ramirez’ appeal was not heard until June of 2006, which was 17 years after his conviction. Even though the appeal was decided about 60 days later, if his remaining appeals and writs are heard within the average time schedule of additional writs and appeals, his convictions will not be final until the year 2114 at the earliest.
And at least Ramirez has appointed appellate counsel. Currently only two of 17 inmates sentenced to death in the year 2002 have had attorneys appointed for their automatic appeals, and none sentenced in 2003 or thereafter have had any appointed at all. As a result, there are presently 88 inmates on Death Row who have still not had counsel appointed for them, and none of them to my knowledge have the funds to hire attorneys themselves.
Why is there such a problem finding attorneys to represent these people? Because one must be experienced in this specialized field, and those professionals can make a great deal more money on other matters than what the state will pay them on these death penalty cases. In addition it is often emotionally draining work. So the numbers of attorneys willing to accept the appointment is declining, and the number of unrepresented sentenced prisoners continues to increase.
But there are many other serious problems in addition to the financial ones. Although about 60 percent of the general population continues to voice support for the death penalty, more and more of those who are required to impose it are withdrawing their support. That includes prosecutors, juries, judges and prison officials. As such, the numbers of death penalty convictions nationwide dropped from 317 in 1996 to only 128 in 2005. And this withdrawal of support also includes medical doctors, who are increasingly seeing their participation in the death penalty as a violation of their Hippocratic Oath.
Another large issue that must be considered with regard to the death penalty is both fairness as well as the appearance of fairness based upon things like racial disparities. Statistics show that the death penalty is invoked a great deal more often when the defendant is a non-white, or when the victim is white. In addition, although the U.S. Supreme Court held only a few years ago that it was unconstitutional to execute juveniles, people are increasingly concerned that we are executing people who are mentally retarded.
Additional problems are seen when either the prosecutors or the judge on the case are up for election in the near future. Are the decisions about life or death being made for legal reasons, or for political ones? Many people are having second thoughts about these things and are beginning to believe that this is something that a civilized society should not be involved with.
We are also more frequently seeing the phenomenon of the families of the victims speaking out publicly against the execution of the convicted perpetrator. One of these is a man named Bud Welch, whose daughter died at the hands of Timothy McVeigh in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. As Mr. Welch continued to think about the situation he stated publicly that he had come to two realizations. The first was that even after McVeigh would be dead that he himself would still not actually feel any better. And the second was that he decided that all of this rage and hatred against McVeigh in the name of his daughter was hardly a fitting tribute to her memory.
Finally, there is the question of making a mistake. With the development of DNA evidence that is considered to be more than 99.9 percent reliable, programs like the “Innocence Project” have shown that more than 200 inmates have been falsely convicted for crimes they did not commit. And that includes 15 defendants that were sentenced to death. Of course, in many ways that can be turned into an argument in favor of future death penalty sentences where DNA evidence would be used to obtain the conviction. But increasingly people have been questioning the death penalty because of its inability to correct mistakes.
We are human, and we can make mistakes. The largest number of false convictions are based upon false eyewitness identifications. Others come for various reasons based upon false confessions by the defendants or unreasonable appeals to the emotions of the jurors. So an increasing number of people are concluding that for many or all of the reasons that have been presented here it is unworthy for an enlightened society to involve itself in the killing of criminal defendants.
In that regard, recently the legislature of the State of New Jersey passed legislation that was signed by the governor repealing the death penalty, which makes it the first state in several decades to do so. But several other states have imposed a moratorium upon its utilization until all of these issues can be studied further. In fact, this position has become so prevalent around the world that no country that imposes the death penalty is actually qualified to join the European Union.
So whether you believe that the death penalty is appropriate or not in theory, I believe the facts show unmistakably that the system is dysfunctional and that the laws are not working as intended. And as a practical reality, in today’s real world they cannot be made to work.
Accordingly, I have personally concluded that the families of the victims would be better served by its repeal; the huge amount of tax money would be better spent on improving our roads or paying the salaries of our police and firefighters; both the trial and appellate courts could better devote their resources and energies to address numbers of other issues in our society that are crying out for attention; and our country could rejoin most of the rest of the civilized world by repealing this practice. One way or the other everyone will benefit, because the system we have today is neither swift nor sure.
So based upon my experience and observations, that is what I think. But what you think is more important, because the decision belongs to you.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
“FACING FACTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY” (33A)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The death penalty is certainly an emotional issue that affects many people in numbers of different ways. So in today’s column I will address head on most of the common arguments that are used in favor of the death penalty, as well as some facts about and responses to them. Then next week I will suggest some additional facts and arguments that should also be considered as we all decide how best to proceed in this critical and emotional area. Of course and as always, I encourage your comments and responses to whatever I say.
Typically the proponents of the death penalty present five justifications for its implementation. They are that this is the appropriate punishment for the offender of such a serious crime, rightful societal vengeance (often cited as an “eye for an eye”), reducing to zero the chances that the offender will return to society, deterrence against future violations by other offenders, and closure for the families of the victims.
The first issue I will discuss is the possibility of the offenders returning to society. When a person is convicted of a “special circumstance” murder, the only two sentences allowed under the law in California are the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole, otherwise known as “LWOP.” In times past a person receiving a “life” sentence could still be paroled, but now if an offender receives an LWOP, that is simply not possible under the law without a pardon from the Governor, which is politically quite unlikely. Furthermore, to my knowledge no one serving such a sentence has ever escaped from prison. As a result, this is probably no longer a reason for the death penalty to be invoked.
With regard to the issue of closure for the families of the victims, consider that California has had only 15 executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978. But as of this time there are more than 660 convicted offenders on death row. 30 of those offenders have been there for more than 25 years, 119 for more than 20 years, and 408 for longer than 10 years. The last two people executed were Clarence Ray Allen and Stanley “Tookey” Williams, both of whom were executed about 26 years after their offenses were committed. As a result, “closure” for the families, if it comes at all, comes after keeping the books open for decades.
So not only does the death penalty not bring closure, it actually keeps the families of the victims on an emotional roller coaster. Because of the appeals and occasional re-trials, the families are forced to relive the grisly details of their loved-one’s death, over and over again. To me this is actually using the grieving families as bit-players in a long-continuing political drama. And when it comes down to it, does it furnish much satisfaction to see the object of one’s hatred simply go to sleep when hooked up to a needle? So for all of these reasons, maybe what we are doing is the opposite of closure for those victimized people.
In addition, since it is deemed by many people to be an “insult” to the memory of the deceased victim not to invoke the maximum punishment, there is a perceived obligation to seek the death penalty regardless of the costs, either human or financial. But if the maximum punishment were to be a sentence to life without the possibility of parole, the families would be more likely to be satisfied with that result and go on with their lives.
Well then, what about deterrence against future offenders? Probably the only circumstances in which deterrence would be a factor would be offenses like murder for hire (both for the people paying for the deed to be done and for the killers themselves), murder after laying in wait, kidnapping in which the victim is killed, multiple murders or murders while already serving an LWOP sentence, and offenses like treason. Most of those involve situations in which the acts are usually planned and well thought out in advance.
But the large majority of offenses for which the death penalty is imposed are for offenses that are not that way. That is to say, most burglars and robbers do not plan in advance to kill anybody, but things get out of control and people are killed as a result. And the offenders that do make prior plans are often involved in heavily emotional situations like being jilted lovers, or people of that kind, so they are not focusing upon deterrence anyway. Those realities, coupled with the fact that most offenders never feel that they will ever be caught at all, negate the effects of deterrence for most offenses.
One more fact enters into this equation as well. As a practical matter, if a person knows that he has committed an offense that would qualify him for the death penalty, that person tends to feel with some justification that he has nothing more to lose. That belief in turn results in that person killing the witnesses to the offense to keep them from testifying against him, and also killing the police officers that attempt to arrest him. So in effect, what we end up with is the opposite of deterrence.
With regard to the punishment of the offender, I have no particular wisdom to suggest to you other than saying that in many ways serving a sentence of life without the possibility of ever being released would in many ways be a more severe sentence for most offenders than actually being executed.
That leaves the issue of societal vengeance. Of course, this is a complicated and multifaceted issue. On the one hand, there has been an historical and even biblical rationale that the proper penalty for wrongly taking the life of another is to forfeit one’s own life. But on the other hand, people argue that it is hard to justify our country as being the world’s champion of human rights if it is so at odds with much of the rest of the world on the issue of capital punishment.
For example, since California reinstated the death penalty in 1978, no fewer than 60 other countries have chosen to abolish it. Although there are dozens of countries that still have the death penalty on the books, only six of those countries, including the United States of America, are responsible for 90 percent of all of the executions. The other five are China, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the Sudan. As such we are keeping pretty lowly company in the area of human rights.
So that is a short discussion about the traditional arguments in favor of invoking the death penalty. I realize that this can be an emotional subject, and that many of you may feel that people who present information like this are “bleeding heart liberals.” But I have been a trial court judge here in Orange County since I was appointed by Governor Deukmejian at the end of 1983, and I wanted to share with you the facts as I have seen and observed them.
This is important because in the final analysis whether we continue with the death penalty is up to you as the voters, and not up to us as judges. Next week we will discuss additional factors that I hope you consider before coming to or modifying your own conclusions.
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of Wearing the Robe – the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.
“A STITCH IN TIME SAVES KIDS” (32)
< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Sometimes the court system doesn’t do what the community expects, and even has a right to expect. For example, it would seem to be fundamental that the Juvenile Court would try to gather as much overall information as it could about the conditions of its juvenile subjects so that it could address their medical, psychological and behavioral problems before they resulted in serious threats to the child’s future. But this has not been the situation.
In my view, we should test for everything that might reasonably be a factor in non-performance the very first time a child enters the juvenile court system. That means we should research and test for things like dyslexia, vision and hearing problems, domestic violence, school truancy, physical handicaps, substance abuse, gang involvement, sexual abuse, prior disciplinary problems, and virtually anything else that might be adversely affecting the kids’ positive and beneficial development.
Why? Because the earlier we can diagnosis problems in children, the earlier we can address them and keep them from becoming permanent impediments to the children’s future. For example, most juvenile court officers agree that at least 15 percent of the children that enter the juvenile court system suffer from dyslexia. That means that the kids naturally start to think that they are mentally slow or worse.
So what happens then? The kids start sitting in the back of the school classroom, and not paying attention to their studies. Why does this occur? They develop the syndrome that “they can’t learn anyway, so why bother?” So soon they start getting into minor troubles at school and elsewhere, and eventually that broadens into more serious difficulties.
But once their dyslexia is diagnosed they learn that they really are not dumb or even slow after all. Instead they see that they have a medical condition that can be addressed and overcome without all that much difficulty. And then good things start to happen.
So the earlier we diagnose these various conditions, the fewer problems the children will have, and the safer all of the rest of us will be. In other words, under a program of early diagnosis and treatment, everyone wins. As such, the phrase “A stitch in time saves nine” is undeniably true with children.
Actually Orange County has recently become a pilot program for the State of California, with some money being earmarked to help our kids in matters of this kind. And I am happy to report that last week all of the judges of the Juvenile Court voted unanimously that if we can obtain these funds, they will be spent for the universal screening of kids the first time they come into the system. Then before a juvenile court judge issues a disposition order about how to handle juvenile offenders, that judge will have a laundry list of conditions that the subject has been screened for, and the results from that screening.
So then what do we do? Well, the court system can undertake some remedial action, including drug treatment, non-violent dispute resolution and individual and family counseling. But for almost all learning disabilities, school districts are required by law to spend the resources necessary to address the special needs of our children once they have been diagnosed.
So the courts can call these problems to the attention of the school districts and demand remedial action. Of course, the problem is that the schools typically do not want these diagnoses to take place, because then they will be legally responsible to do something to address them. But that should not stop this action from taking place.
Personally, I am sympathetic with the school districts. It has been really easy for Congress and the state legislature to pass “unfunded mandates” that require agencies like the school districts to do lots of good things, without at the same time providing them with the resources to carry out the required tasks. In my view, conceptually it is much more appropriate for the agencies that decide the work should be done actually to pay for it themselves. That way, if they spend their own money they tend to get more “bang for the buck.”
Unfortunately the way it is now, the schools are required to do so much with so little that they naturally tend to delay or even avoid the implementation of some of this remedial work, even if it is legally required. This has in turn resulted in numbers of parents engaging in expensive litigation that has eventually resulted in court ordered compliance. But one way or another we must understand that the opportunity to be pro-active in diagnosing and addressing the problems areas of our children at the earliest possible moment must not be missed.
A few years ago the Orange County Probation Department discovered that a full 50 percent of all of the juvenile crime in our county was being perpetrated by only 8 percent of the offenders. So it implemented a pro-active program that it called the 8 Percent Solution.
The probation department learned that if a child satisfied three of four criteria, that child was soon likely to be involved in some serious criminal activity. The four criteria were that the child had a disrupted family, had problems in school, had substance abuse problems, and was involved in pre-delinquent behavior, such as gang ties, running away from home or stealing.
But once the child was diagnosed as being an “8 percenter,” the probation department provided services not only for that child, but for the child’s entire family. The rationale was that we should not wait for the child’s siblings to become involved in anti-social behavior as well. Instead, we should provide counseling services, school tutoring, drug treatment and other services for the entire family and head off the anti-social behavior. And the probation department found that by taking this pro-active approach, the number of repeat arrests was reduced by more than half. I think everyone will agree that those were wonderful results.
I am convinced that the same results can be obtained if we become more pro-active with all of the children that come into the juvenile court system. And we can begin this program by diagnosing each kid for potential problem areas at the child’s first contact with the system, and then working together to address those conditions. Not only will this reduce the emotional misery of lost young lives, but it will also substantially reduce the amount of crime in our communities, and the financial cost of the criminal justice system itself.
So I think this is truly worth doing. What do you think?
James P. Gray is a judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of “Wearing the Robe, the Art and Responsibilities of Judging in Today’s Courts (Square One Press, 2008), and can be reached at JimPGray@sbcGlobal.net, or at his blog at JudgeJimGray.JudgeJimGray.com.