5
I N D I A N A D A I LY S T U D E N T | W E D N E S D AY, M A R C H 2 5 , 2 0 1 5 | I D S N E W S . C O M
ONE MORE THOUGHT
Jordan River Forum
Who runs the pacific?
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
J-U-R-Y does not spell ‘rubber stamp’ Break out the world’s smallest violin for prosecutors in Alachua County, Fla. They’re having problems finding citizens who will jail other citizens for marijuana possession. In one recent case it took hours to weed out (pun intended) prospective jurors who didn’t think marijuana should be illegal. Giansville Sun writer Cindy Swirko’s “When opinions on pot, and the law, collide” is a refreshingly fair-minded piece on this “problem” and on the wider phenomenon of jury nullification. Jury nullification occurs when a jury bases its verdict not on the facts of a case, but on the jurors’ opinion that the law is defective or morally wrong. That might sound strange, but it’s an important part of American legal history. Jury nullification was a key tool of the 19th century’s anti-slavery movement. The Fugitive Slave Act imposed criminal penalties for assisting fleeing slaves. Northern juries refused to convict Underground Railroad activists. Jury nullification also helped to end alcohol
prohibition as juries frequently declined to convict bootleggers. In one (perhaps apocryphal) case, the jury allegedly “drank the evidence,” then acquitted. In a 1969 case, United States v. Moylan, where the defendants stood accused of impeding the military draft, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held unanimously that “if the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision.” As more and more Americans conclude the “war on drugs” — especially marijuana — is impractical and immoral, that force is once again making itself felt. Prosecutors hate jury nullification. It messes up their batting averages. The measure of prosecutorial effectiveness is the conviction rate. That’s why plea bargains are so popular. Ninety-two percent of Americans
charged with crimes plead guilty in return for lesser charges or lighter sentences. Of the 8 percent who go to trial, three-fourths are convicted. Yes, that’s right; of 50 Americans accused of crimes, 49 plead guilty or are convicted. But that one acquittal drives prosecutors nuts. So, with the cooperation of judges, they’ve turned jury selection into an extended interrogation with only one acceptable answer: “Yes, I will serve unquestioningly as your rubber stamp.” The Fully Informed Jury Association fights this trend, working to ensure prospective jurors know about their right to “judge the law as well as the facts” and to explicitly codify in our laws an obligation of judges to inform them of that right. Are your legislators sponsoring a Fully Informed Jury Act in your state? If not, maybe you should call their offices and ask why. Tom Knapp media@c4ss.org
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Secret Service incident notes double standard Imagine the following scenario: You’re driving along one fine evening, pretty thoroughly drunk, and ram your car through police tape and into a barricade. Suppose further that the barricade you’ve smashed into is in front of the White House. For good measure, let’s add that the police tape you broke was marking off an active crime scene — an ongoing bomb investigation, which you’ve now dangerously disrupted. The cops quickly approach your car. What are your chances of avoiding arrest, or worse? Oh wait, I forgot to mention that you’re a Secret Service agent. So it turns out you don’t get shot, or tased, or roughed up, or slapped in jail, or even detained. You just go home. Precisely this scenario unfolded March 4, with two seemingly intoxicated Secret Service agents crashing into a barricade at the east entrance to the White House grounds, nearly running over a suspicious object that agents on the scene were in the course of investigating as a possible bomber. Officers on duty wanted to arrest the two or give them sobriety tests, but were instructed by a supervisor to let them go. They’ve been placed in “nonsupervisory, non-operational,” but presumably paid positions pending further
investigation. What are the odds this would have happened to you or me? Predictably, the incident has led to renewed calls for major reforms of the Secret Service. But the double standard — leniency for the elite in-group, severity for the rest of us — is inherent in the system and cannot be corrected by mere reforms. Implicit of the idea of a governmental police force, from the Secret Service down to your local beat cop, is inequality of rights. Police by definition are supposed to have rights other people don’t have: rights to stop, search or incarcerate peaceful people and to use deadly force against those who resist. But as long as this double standard is inherent in the police system as such, all attempts to reform the system are destined to fail, whether in Staten Island, Ferguson or the Secret Service. So long as power corrupts and attracts the corruptible, any system characterized by inequality of rights renders abuse inevitable. Reforms that target only the symptoms (abuses) and not their root cause (unequal rights) will achieve, at best, only limited success. The right to use force in defense of oneself or others is a basic and universal human right. But the rights police claim for themselves go beyond this.
Tossing someone in jail for smoking a joint or shooting them when they resist being kidnapped cannot plausibly be construed as defense. And anything a cop is allowed to do that an ordinary citizen is not — carry a gun, perform arrests and so on — violates the basic equality of rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” and the Constitution, “equal protection of the laws.” If we do not wish to perpetuate a two-tiered system of justice, any purported right must either be extended to all or denied to all. There’s nothing wrong with a group of people choosing careers specializing in rights-protection. But it makes no more sense to give such people special rights, rights denied the rest of us, than it does to give professional bakers the right to prevent you from baking bread in your kitchen. A free society cannot recognize special rights enjoyed by some and denied to others. So long as we permit the double standard inherent in a system of government police, abuses will continue, and reforms will founder. Roderick Long media@c4ss.org
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
One student’s thoughts on achieving goals “Live like every moment was your last,” “Live like you will die tomorrow” and maxims in this vein are both inspiring and well-meaning, but they do not provide a sense of direction, nor do they adhere well to the way life operates. Can you truly live like it is your last moment when you are brushing your teeth, showering, waiting for a friend at a food court or sleeping? The exalted drama, the great sense of satisfaction promised in these sayings is found not in every single moment, but in the trends and patterns you set for yourself. These trends and patterns are made most obvious when you examine your goals in life and how you work to achieve them. As I mentioned, life is not such that ev-
ery waking moment can be one lived as thought it were your last. This is what causes many people to despair, to feel that they are not achieving anything. The way to be successful and happy is to set goals for yourself and to funnel all of your efforts toward achieving them. Let every moment, the good and the bad, the enthralling and the boring, be purposeful with some end in mind. This slow funneling of effort, this purposeful action, will help give you a sense of direction and happiness by attaching a narrative, a greater importance, to even the most mundane of moments. The ambitions of students at this university are as varied as the students themselves. Whether you want to begin
to love yourself, speak to people more often, get a certain GPA, overcome heartbreak or prepare for a job, in addition to any other feasible goal, I cannot know. But I know if you work constantly, little by little, that you will see improvement in your life, and you will succeed as you want. Be ever loftier. From where you are currently, go up. Always higher. Ever loftier. This is a maxim that is better reflective of reality and gives you a sense of direction in life at a time when your direction is not yet fully known. Scott Jauch Sophomore in International Studies sjauch@indiana.edu
China is in the process of launching a new international financial institution by the end of this year. It will be called the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or AIIB for short. It will look to help modernize through funding the infrastructure of many of Asia’s developing countries. This institution will fit nicely with China’s strategic goals of playing a stronger leadership role in the region and promoting economic development across the board. There is just one problem. The United States doesn’t seem to like it. From the beginning, the U.S. has been skeptical of the oversight and the transparency of the bank. Not to mention the fact that the creation of this new bank will overlap with some of the functions of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank — all three of which happen to be Western-dominated, interestingly enough. There are many who speculate the U.S. is weary of having a Chinese-led rival that might disrupt the region and counter American interests. So the U.S. has been vocal about its concerns, and historically, that would be enough for our Western counterparts and Asian allies to follow suit. However many Western countries have defied the United States’ position. To name just a few, Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, France and, most surprisingly of all, Great Britain have all applied to be founding members of the bank, and there could be more before the March 31 deadline. South Korea is also weighing a membership bid — an indication it may be considering a pivot toward cooperation with China rather than the U.S.
Cameron Gerst is a junior in finance.
in the region down the road. To make matters worse, International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde issued a statement in Beijing in support of the creation of the new bank and pledged a willingness to cooperate with it. This is quite a different stance than we thought they would take. So where does that leave us? And why should we care? I have written before about the growing power of China and the seeming unpreparedness on our part. The world is changing rapidly, and time and time again we find ourselves behind the eight-ball. My fear is, as we lose our influence either justifiably or unjustifiably, we respond poorly and increase the divide between us and much of the world. If American influence is waning around the world, it is going to take serious work to redefine our foreign policy and our national identity. For several decades, we have held the privileged position of the sole super power. Whether we like it or not, that has affected how we view the world and other nations. I am extremely proud of role the U.S. has played in shaping and leading the world, and my hope would be that this continue. But if not, we need a quick rethink of how we interact with the emerging powers in the world who have a thirst for influence and are determined to quench it. cgerst@indiana.edu
SHELLING IT OUT
Trainor is terrible If there was an award for worst role model of the year, Meghan Trainor would most definitely get my vote. But before I address that, it is important to note I, like many others, support what is quoted by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie as being the “Social, political and economic equality of the sexes.” In other words, I’m a feminist. Obviously the support of feminism isn’t for everyone, and everyone most certainly refers to Meghan Trainor, or as I like to call her, the world’s least influential woman. “I don’t consider myself a feminist,” Trainor said in an interview with Billboard. “But I’m down for my first opportunity to say something meaningful.” Although questionable given the day and age, that’s not what makes Trainor a bad role model. The pop singer most known for “All About That Bass” recently released her new music video for “Dear Future Husband,” a song listing relationship-y things a “man” should do. Cute concept, right? Sure, until you realize the lyrics detail traditional gender roles and say things like “Don’t forget the flowers every anniversary” and “I’ll be the perfect wife, buying groceries.” Not to mention Trainor is singing portions of the song while scrubbing the kitchen floor and baking in an apron. The video has been deemed the “most sexist music video ever” by Metro, and for good reason. With society trying so hard to advance the equalities of women, it’s almost as if Meghan Trainor single-handedly decided to take us back a few steps. But the sexist comments aren’t the only thing Trainor has been in hot water for the past months. In an interview with Entertainment Tonight, Trainor spoke about being one of the larger girls in her school
Shelbey Vandenbroucke is a freshman in journalism.
growing up and dismissed the thought of having an eating disorder in a way that made fans and fellow celebrity Demi Lovato stop in their tracks. “I wasn’t strong enough to have an eating disorder,” Trainor said to ET. “I tried to go anorexic for a good three hours. I ate ice and celery, but that’s not even anorexic. And I quit. I was like, ‘Ma, can you make me a sandwich? Like, immediately.’” Seriously? As with any controversial celebrity comment, Twitter was sent into a whirlwind of backlash including Tweets from singer-songwriter Demi Lovato, who has publicly voiced her struggles with an eating disorder to her fans. “Having an eating disorder doesn’t show ‘strength,’” Lovato said. “Strength is when (you) are able to overcome your demons after being sick and tired for so long ... Let’s be cautious of the words we use when discussing ED’s and other mental illnesses.” As a woman in today’s society, mental health issues and feminism are two of the most important topics to me. Though some are uneasy about declaring themselves a feminist, informed individuals know the term simply refers to allowing women the same opportunities men have. As for the eating disorder commentary, Trainor probably wasn’t aware she would spark such a debate. Nevertheless, such a sensitive topic that affects millions of people worldwide should not be joked about or glorified. If you’re looking for someone to call your idol, just make sure you find someone other than Meghan Trainor. snvanden@indiana.edu
SIMPLICITY WITH SEYMOUR
A true sustainable United States will not happen in an instant Reports this week claim Costa Rica has been getting all of its energy from renewable resources since Jan. 1. Thanks to heavy rainfall and hydroelectric infrastructure, the country has remained independent from fossil fuels for 75 days. Costa Rica has even been able to drop electricity rates by 12 percent, according to the
Costa Rican Energy Institute. Of course, this has prompted several people on the Internet to spout comments comparing Costa Rica’s energy capabilities with our own. If Costa Rica can do it, then so can we. Ideas like this are falsely based. It would be awesome if the U.S. could run solely on renewable energy, but right now it’s unrealistic.
The U.S. population is 65 times larger than Costa Rica’s, which means our energy needs are much greater. I guarantee Costa Rica’s renewable sources would not be producing enough energy for 318.9 million people. Also, much of Costa Rica’s energy came from heavy rainfall and hydroelectric infrastructure. Several parts of the U.S.
are currently going through a drought, and it would be up to the other sources to not only produce a lot of energy, but to also make up for where hydroelectric falls behind. I’m pro-energy. I would love to live in a place that completely relies on renewable sources for energy. But that’s not possible in the U.S. right now. Our population
is too large, and we’re not willing to give up gas. That doesn’t mean it’s our fault we’re dependent on fossil fuels. Oil and gas are just too convenient to give up for most of us, and current technology hasn’t made other sources all that convenient. So maybe the lesson isn’t that we should play like Costa Rica and attempt the
Brian Seymour is a sophomore in marine biology.
impossible. We should be investing in companies that deal with renewable resources so they can produce the products we need to eventually live in a world free of fossil fuels. briseymo@indiana.edu