This series of Drug War Stupidity posts was never supposed to be about current events but there is some real drug war stupidity happening in current events and here I am writing about it instead of watching terrible horror movies or cartoons like I had planned. I'll admit it, I was a bit behind in reading the news for the last few days. This was, partly, because I have a tendency for procrastination (with some things, anyway), and, partly, because I have become incredibly fatigued with the endless political theater, hyperbole, empty promises, misinformation, unentertaining banter, commercials for catheters , and general whining that one sees when he or she sees tries to read or watch the news. So, please forgive me for not covering this absurd issue sooner. Getting to my point (finally) I read a story today that said the Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, is instructing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in some drug cases.

This insane approach to drug enforcement is an absolute violation of the spirit and credibility of the American justice system and the civil rights of anyone who is accused of a drug crime. In the modern era, at least, there has always been a sense of proportionality between crime and punishment. It was flawed, admittedly, but it existed. Committing a malum in se crime, like murder, would (usually) carry a stiffer penalty than a crime that is malum prohibitum, like selling weed. The entirety of western law has, until now, pretty much agreed on this principal. Well, that's all gone in the U.S. apparently.

This use of the death penalty for drug dealing likely violates the eight amendment to the United States constitution which, allegedly, protects people from "cruel and unusual punishment. I really hate to quote Wikipedia but I'm pretty tired and I don't want to spend too much time finding a better source, so here we go. Cruel and unusual punishment is determined by the following tests: "There are generally tests that can serve as a guide to what cruel and unusual punishment is according to various legal textbooks in accordance with the law. These are: Overall acceptance in society, severity (the punishment fits the crime), and if the punishment is arbitrary" (Wikipedia). I will focus on the first two tests as they are the most relevant. The death penalty is not generally accepted for non-capital crimes in the United States. Even in murder cases it is often inappropriate and applying it to drug offences is likely viewed as being beyond the pale by most Americans. It also does not fit the crime either. Someone possessing a prohibited substance does not rise to the levels of murder and treason and does not deserve the same punishment.

It is a really bad look for the U.S. internationally too. Most of the moral credibility (if there ever actually was any) the United States had has been slowly chipped away by this war or that drone strike but we could, at least, point to our rule of law and the (supposed) justness of that system as an example of our enlightenment. This misuse of capital punishment does away with that argument. As we established, it violates the rights of the accused and when the legal system no longer follows the law, justice dies.

This will increase violence against law enforcement and civilians alike. For most people, when death is on the line all bets are off. If an armed and potentially dangerous individual is faced with arrest, he or she will make a calculation. Call it a risk/reward assessment if you like. The reward is freedom if he or she uses violence to escape from the police and the risk is being killed by the police in the attempt. If he or she is facing three years in prison, he or she will likely conclude that the risk far outweighs the reward. If, on the other hand, this fictional person fears being put to death by the state, he or she will come to a very different conclusion because the risk is the same whether he or she fights or surrenders. Even regular people will suffer as a result of this policy. If you witness a murder, a murderer may try to silence you because you could out them for the crime and they would be severely punished. If you witness someone buying mushrooms they typically don't start plotting your death, until now, I guess.

If the death penalty is normalized for non-capital crimes, this will not stop here. I know full well that "slippery slope" arguments are considered a logical fallacy (for good reason too). I, however, am not saying that one thing naturally leads to another. I am arguing from my knowledge of history and of my own government that once a power is given to an authority they will never willingly surrender it. They, instead, abuse that power and push it as far beyond its limits as they can. We will find ourselves in a land where, at the discretion of whomever is in power, any accusation of a crime can mean the end of our lives. If you will allow me to put on my tin foil hat for a while, I will lay out how I see this happening. They will choose a class of criminal that no respectable person would defend. So, something like rape becomes a capital offense and (rightly) nobody sheds any tears for the dead rapists. Next, it is something a little less heinous than that, maybe grand theft. Then it is another thing, and another, and another, until we live only by the grace of our "benevolent" masters. "Thank's for keeping us safe from those dangerous criminals who want to kill us with drugs by hanging us with your ropes."

If you will allow me to keep my tin foil hat on for just a little longer, I will talk (well write, actually) about who I think this is really meant to benefit. I'm sure you can guess the answer but, to make it clear, I will say it. The pharmaceutical companies benefit and, doubtlessly, lobby for this type of law. They are making a play for territory by killing their competition; just like one cartel moves against another. The only difference is that they are using the state to do their dirty work and tax money to fund it. Call me crazy if you wish but they do have, both, the motive and the means to push for new political policies like these.

Well that's all I have for now but I will likely come back to this topic in the future as this story develops. I will, however, leave with these words: If you support personal freedom, drug law reform, human rights, or the fair and sensible application of justice, please do what you can to oppose this. From what I understand, gun rights people have been very successful at swaying policy in their favor with letter writing and phone call campaigns. I am not involved with that debate and you may feel however you like about it but I think we should steal that style of activism. If a thing works then there should be no shame in doing it. You could also write about this and try to spread this story to a larger number of people. I am at a loss as to how else to fight this policy but it is a fight that we must peacefully (I feel like I shouldn't have to say that) win.

Peace

This was a special installment of a continuing series of posts that are intended to highlight some of the dumber aspects of the drug war. If you liked this post feel free to check out my page for other similar content.

You can read more about this story here:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/379508-sessions-issues-memo-on-use-of-death-penalty-in-drug-related-cases

Unless otherwise credited, all the images in this post were sourced from the free image website unsplash.com.