Seems like kind of an empty threat, given the low probability of serving on a jury for that exact kind of case. (Even lower now that they've said something to make prosecutors dislike them.) However, I'm sure the publicity was the point.

Hoping to lead by example, I assume, without having to say that's the point.

I'm curious how many people really get tried in America for mere non-violent drug possession (not dealing)? I suspect, with no evidence or knowledge, that the rates are relatively low. Anyone know anything non-anecdotal about this?

Also, jury nullification is awesome. It's perfectly legal and valid, but courts are exceedingly loathe to allow any sort of discussion of it to actually come up before a jury, lest the jury realize that they're bound by nothing except their own honor when making a decision in the jury room. It's super dooper cool.

Plus, the history of nullification goes back at least to Sir Walter Raleigh, and who doesn't like talking about Sir Walter Raleigh?

"I suspect, with no evidence or knowledge, that the rates are relatively low."

Why, because you have blind faith in our justice system? Anyway, it's not completely fair to just look at getting tried for drug offenses -- some people are sent to jail because they are "repeat offenders," where the first offense is a non-violent drug crime. Still:

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/one_million/onemillionexec.html
http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/20/20021.html (old)
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of presuming laziness. My guess is that nobody really wants to deal with the hassle (and cost) of arresting, trying and jailing people for mere possession. Dealing is a different matter (and one for which I have marginally less sympathy), but it's possession that I suspect is almost never charged and prosecuted.

The first link talks about nonviolent offenders and drug offenders in separate categories. It's unclear whether the drug offenders were also violent.

The second link does not separate those charged with possession from those charged with some variation of dealing ("42.3 percent were couriers or played peripheral roles in drug trafficking").

The third link has a lot of information, but I can't quickly identify anything that would speak to the number of non-violent possession charges.

True, I'd have to do more research to find teased out statistics. But drug trafficking is, on its own, a non-violent crime. (Of course, there is a correlation with violent crimes, I'm sure.)

You're right that cops don't spend money to investigate drug users. But they use possession all the time to heighten other crimes, and to throw people in jail.

I know you don't want anecdotes, but in Vegas this happened all the time. The cops would bust a homeless dude for jaywalking, find drugs on him, and then throw him in jail for awhile.

Also, you need to apply some simple logic here. How come prisons are at their most crowded in American history, yet there has been a dip in violent crimes in the past 30 years? A lot more embezzlement? Or the Drug War Nixon started?

When you say you have "marginally less sympathy" for dealers than users, would you say you have a good deal of sympathy for users and some, but slightly less for dealers, or that you only have a small amount for users and close to none for dealers, or something in between?

You don't have sympathy for the characters in The Wire who end up dealing on the corner? Wallace? Dookie?

CM -

"Also, you need to apply some simple logic here. How come prisons are at their most crowded in American history, yet there has been a dip in violent crimes in the past 30 years?"

Ha, by using logic on this statement, I would suspect that it's because we finally got around to locking up all the violent criminals.

For a non-sarcastic response, I'd posit a potential guess that perhaps we really are arresting a higher percentage of criminals. Or, and this one's more likely, we're keeping criminals in jail a lot longer than we used to. Or, and this one's the most likely, the drug war is leading to a lot more crime of various sorts. This could mean that there's a lot more people being arrested for possession, OR it could mean there's a lot more people being arrested for burglary to buy drugs, for DWIs or stupid crimes committed while doing drugs, or for charges linked to being involved in the production, transport or sale of drugs (or related crimes like gun charges or other crimes linked to the violent and aggressive nature of running an underground criminal distribution system). I just don't think there's a lot of non-violent possession people in jail. I'm open to be convinced that I'm wrong on this point.

Jon May -

I have a fairly high amount of sympathy for drug possessors, if they are in fact being charged with criminal possession (though not stupid criminal possessors, like those carrying drugs on airplanes or across international borders). For drug dealers I have a sympathy range that runs from fairly high (with regard to minor, neighborhood, selling-drugs-to-my-friends drug dealers) to fairly low (with regard to major, international cartel, I'm-going-to-kill-a-bunch-of-South-American-police-and-rival-cartel-organization-
members-in-order-buy-a-new-gold-plated-yacht-and-import-some-stereotypical-women drug dealers). There's a lot of gradation in the middle.

Heh, very true. I guess I should've just pointed out that my above links show that non-violent offenders in jail have increased.

"I just don't think there's a lot of non-violent possession people in jail. I'm open to be convinced that I'm wrong on this point."

I think that you're unlikely to find many people in jail for a single charge of possession. But as I said above, that's a red herring -- possession charges heighten jail time when tied to other charges, or can push someone above a minimum threshold of offenses. These effects matter, especially to sentencing, which I think has a lot to do with jail crowding.

Wikipedia says all U.S. states have drug courts, which might confuse the issue. IIRC, in CA, you plead guilty and go to classes and take pee tests. If you complete everything, your conviction is sealed (expunged? dismissed?) and you dance off into the sunset. If you fail a pee test, I think you get punished without further trial because you've already entered a guilty plea.

So that would probably cut down on the simple possession trials a lot. But it could still clog the jails with nonviolent drug possessors, if a lot of people fail their tests. I'm sure there are stats on this that would be easy to pull up if I tried.

Also, I think there's a bigger reality here: charge-stacking. Almost NEVER is someone tried for one crime. They are charged w/ the underlying crime (jaywalking, theft, murder - anywhere in the gamut) plus possession, plus possession of paraphernalia, plus intent to sell (ooh, a felony) if they can find a baggie or some cash. Then, when you're facing 30 years consecutively, you plead guilty (6 mos and a fine) to a misdemeanor possession charge - or maybe even the jaywalking - I had exactly such a client, believe it or not. He's now serving 3 years for jaywalking (a misdemeanor), sentence enhanced because of three strike rules, who was looking at 10-15 for the syringe & weed in his pocket the cops found when they searched him incident to his lawful arrest for jaywalking. He pled guilty. He is a victim of the drug war in NO uncertain terms, but he would never show up in a search for these stats.

Yes, flea nails the point I was trying to make.

First off, let's be clear, nobody's more pro-drug legalization than me. I think the whole idea of having to get a mandatory prescription to get drugs from the pharmacy is a ridiculous imposition on my rights. I would never argue that that I think the drug war is a good thing.

I just don't think that jury nullification is a method that can impact more than a tiny, tiny percentage of cases. People being charged with multiple (non-drug) crimes, or pleading guilty because of mandatory minimums, mean that neither the Wire writer, nor anybody else, will have the opportunity to free a drug possessor. The system can't really be impacted in this manner.

agreed. i think almost no one goes to TRIAL on possession charges alone, for real.

How can the system be impacted?

And where the hell are my italics?