Oregon daily emerald., April 11, 1973, Page 7, Image 7

-Commentaries
A beginning against crime
By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY Jr.
It is a commonplace that the liberals
have discovered crime, indeed one would
think, to observe the candidates for mayor
of New York, that it was the only issue.
Mr. John Lindsay, the mayor of New York,
was prominently identified with those who
disdained any cure for crime except
through social therapies ranging from
Head Start to anti-pollution. When a
month ago Mr. Lindsay addressed the
police of New York and said “there can be
no higher priority than the safety of the
city’s citizens in their homes and on the
streets of their neighborhood” he was
greeted with a tumultuous ovation, the
first he ever got from policemen. And all
the candidates to succeed Mr. Lindsay,
without exception, have stressed the need
to do something about crime. What?
Mr. Anthony Lewis of the New York
Times has written plaintively that the
accent placed by such as Nelson
Rockefeller and Richard Nixon on stiff
sentences isn’t really on the point. His
reasoning is that experience shows that a
long sentence does not deter, that only the
reasonable certainty of punishment
deters. He fails however to point out that
although a long sentence does not deter —
which is quite true — it does remove a
particular individual from the scene.
Prisons do not as a general rule
rehabilitate. They are leisurely in
carceration centers. If a drug pusher is
going to resume drug pushing when he gets
back on the streets, why then it makes a lot
of sense to keep him off the streets, which
is the reasoning of President Nixon and
Governor Rockefeller, never mind for the
moment the highly persuasive arguments
against mandatory life sentences.
Unfortunately, Mr. Lewis was not
particularly resourceful in suggesting
what should be done to assure punishment,
though he was obliging enough to spare us
the routine recriminations against war,
racism, and materialism. Neither have
the candidates for mayor of New York
been specific, into which vacuum I in
troduce these reforms.
Early this year Governor Rockefeller
suggested a constitutional amendment
that would alto- the method of creating
judges in New York state. The courts, as
everyone knows, are a part of the problem,
and it is desirable to elevate the quality of
the men who preside over these courts.
Since 1846, New York, like most other
states, has elected its judges instead of
appointing them, as is done, for instance,
in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
The trouble with elected judges is that in
order to commend themselves to the
politicians who decide whether to
nominate them, it is frequently necessary
to do the kind of thing lawyers of quality
are unwilling to do. There is a lot of
routine denunciation of people who get to
be ambassadors in virtue of their con
tributions to national political parties, not
enough of people who get to be judges as a
result of their contributions to local
political parties; yet a bad judge can do a
lot more harm these days than a bad
ambassador.
The so-called Missouri Plan stipulates
that judges should be appointed by the
Governor but must be selected from a
roster of men compiled by various
professional organizations whose job it is
to comb the lawyers’ ranks for quality.
Such a reform in New York is quite simply
overdue and would substantially in
vigorate an effective judicial arm.
And let the reformers commit them
selves on the so-called “exclusionary
. rule.” That rule, effected by the Warren
Court in 1961 by a slender majority of 5 to
4, has had the effect of turning many trials
into investigations not into the guilt or
innocence of the defendant, but the legality
or illegality of the methods by which be
was apprehended. For generations it
was accepted that even tainted evidence
could be considered by the jury, on the
theory, as one Justice put it, that the
question ought to be — Is the man guilty,
not, Did the constable err.
One New York judge, recently retired,
complained that criminal prosecution
takes now nine to ten times as long as it
did before the advent oi the exclusionary
rule. Protests against that rule would
unquestionably result, in due course, in
redirecting the issue to the Supreme Court.
There is little doubt that the current court
would reverse the previous decision, using
the devastating argument Of Justice
Harlan in his dissent in 1961.
Here then two modest points by the
advocacy of which the candidates for
mayor (and for other political offices) can
put up their earnest money an the question
of law and order.
President Nixon's Neo-Volsteaders
By GARY WILLS
Sanity has a way of breaking in, as the
breakdown of Prohibition shows. It is
happening, even now, with the marijuana
laws. Last year, eleven states
decriminalized its possession and use. Six
others are considering that move.
And this is only the overt side of the
changes going. Fewer police arrest,
prosecutors prosecute, and judges con
demn to harsh sentences. It is a victory of
the yawn. Dogs get tired of chasing car
tires.
But President Nixon will not give up as
long as there is one more vote to squeeze
from the neo-Voistenders. He keeps
growling and barking at every mention of
a car tire — which makes his last proposal
to Congress a dangerous one.
He wants to merge six federal agencies
having to do with drugs in a super
manhunt organization to crack down an
the drug trade “worldwide.” Even on its
own terms, the plan suggests many
problems. Why, for instance, take over
routine drug checks from the Customs
Bureau? Special surveillance is possible,
working with the Bureau— but this new
agency would move its own people in on a
permanent basis, even to duplicate
housekeeping-type checks.
But the real problem with the plan is its
single dependence on presidential
initiative. In other areas, Mr. Nixon
criticizes “centralized government.” But
now he wants a super drug force to growl
and show how serious be is to the voters.
The search for heroin and its pushers
should be urged on with all dispatch. But a
pre-emption of the search by a force
dependent on federal policy would be
crippled by the need to observe irrelevant
federal commitments.
Even if the drug cops might want (as
they probably would) to disregard
marijuana, they would have to waste time
going through some time-consuming
motions to back up the President’s “ex
pressions of concern.” A force directed by
an administration that cannot talk sense
on this problem is not very likely to act
sensibly, is it?
The force would also be handicapped by
Nixon’s determination to be uselessly
“tough” for the sake of votes. The force
would have to act on the assumption that
things like the mandatary life sentence for
pushers are the only way to cope with the
problem, though many legal and penology
experts question this.
In short, it would be harder and harder
for sanity to break in on a farce doing all
the federal drug-chasing in the name of
Nixon policy. While our cops chased tire
wheels, who would have time to stop the
heroin trade?
Congress, which likes to pretend it can
fight back against the President, is going
along meekly with this new proposal.
Senator Ribieoff, head of the relevant
subcommittee, thinks it is a good idea!
Too bad the heroin trade is not as
acauiescent as the Congress.
Letfers
For Jackson-Sanchez
It is refreshing to see a ticket for ASUO
Executive that makes a little common
sense; the Jackson-Sanchez ticket.
I have no doubt that by the end of the
campaign most of the perennial politicos
will have absolved themselves of any
association with past regimes. Paige has
distinguished herself with an effective
tenure as an administrative assistant. It is
to her credit that she did her job with
dispatch and relatively little fanfare, a
welcome quality.
She appreciates the realities of
University politic* with a minimum of
rhetoric. Similarly her running mate,
Richard Sanchez maintains a calm,
practical approach to some of the real
issues, i.e. the SEP programs. Instead of
having a “me-too” team, Jackson and
Sanchez are intelligent individuals, each
with something to contribute. I hope the
students have the presence of mind to elect
them.
Joshua Marquis
Junior, political science
For Parrish-Vernon
A very important student body election
is coming up on the 17th and 18th of this
month. The people that are chosen for
president and vice president will have to
be people that will hold out for a 50 percent
representation for students in any kind of a
co-governance arrangement with the
faculty.
The Parrish-Vernon ticket ranks this
task to be of highest importance in the
upcoming year and have vowed not to bow
to President Clark’s 10 percent scheme.
Vote for Parrish and Vernon to insure
equal representation on any co
governance with the faculty.
Ross M. Lienhart
Jr. Business
For Marshall—Fitzpatrick
I urge your support of Doug Marsha D
and Cathy Fitzpatrick in the upcoming
ASUO elections.
Their background and experience
qualify them as the most logical choice for
the ASUO executive positions.
In my opinion, they will do an excellent
job of seeing that all segments of the
University community are adequately
represented. Their approach strikes me
as sound and mature.
David Larry
(1973 Lane Co. Sherrif Candidate)
(White Bird Bd. of Dir.)
(Project Newgate)
For Murray-Garrett
What do we propose to do? First we
propose to lower your incidental fee tax.
Secondly, we propose to start a public
opinion poll which will give you the op
portunity to voice your demands as to how
the incidental fees will be allocated among
other issues.
Third, we plan a preliminary study on
building a geodesic ASUO concert hall to
seat 10,000 students. Fourth we plan a
faculty review system to give the student
an accurate idea of what a class is like
before he signs up for it. We plan massive
public relations efforts.
More importantly we plan to return the
credibility that the ASUO has lost. As you
may have noticed, by Monday April 9 we
were the only candidates who had done
any overt campaigning. We had set up a
recycling center for campaign literature.
We had canvassed apartments, married
student housing, College Inn, campus
among others. No other candidacy cares
enough about you to put out the effort to
campaign. Instead they rely on special
interest blocks to carry them through. We
have no special interests — only you the
typical a politicals. We are the only can
didates to offer a program with substance.
The others rely on co-governance as their
phony issue. We will produce for you IS
hours a day. They won’t.
The extent of their campaigns shows the
level of leadership potential quite well.
Please Vote.
Darrell Murray and Kirby Garrett
After having reviewed and personally
talked with many of the candidates for
ASUO President and Vice-President, we
feel that the best candidates are Greg Leo
and Debbie Barnett. They are the best
qualified leaders for the students as well
as the best representatives to the
University community.
They are outstanding because they're
not that typical third flow politician. What
they are is: experienced, personable,
realistic, open-minded, and above all fair.
After years of ineffective politics they
represent a new beginning fw students at
the University of Oregon. They bring with
them knowledge as administrators and put
it forth in an honest, straightforward way.
We support Debbie and Greg in their
ideas and programs and most of all their
methods to reach their short and long
range goals. We feel a confidence and
trust in them representing our needs as
students.
Unlike others, they have avoided the
trap of overidealization. When Debbie and
Greg make decisions, in any capacity,
they are well thought out and realistic.
Electing Greg Leo and Debbie Barnett will
benefit the university as well as every
student personally.
Tom Smith
lnterfraternity Coun. Pres.
Junior, Liberal Arts
Laurie Farmer
PanheUenic President
Junior, English