Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 17, 2005)
Commentary Oregon Daily Emerald Wednesday, August 17, 2005 fOK.TW4Na.ER Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist NEWS STAFF (541)346-5511 SHADRA BEESLEY EDITOR IN CHIEF (,ABE BRADLEY NEWS EDITOR NICHOLAS WILBUR NEWS REPORTER SHAWN MILLER SPORTS EDITOR RYAN NYBIIRG PULSE EDITOR AILEE SLATER COMMENTARY EDITOR HM BOBOSKY PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR WENDY KIEFFER DESIGN EDITOR JENNY GERWICK COPY CHIEF BRET FURTWANGLER GRAPHIC ARTIST BUSINESS (541)346-5511 JUDY RIEDL GENERAL MANAGER KATHY CARBONE BUSINESS MANAGER AlEX CORBIN ALAN FULLERTON RYAN JOHNSON DISTRIBUTION ADVERTISING (541)346-3712 MELISSA GUST ADVERTISING DIRECTOR MIA LE1DELMEYER SALES MANAGER KELLEE KAUFTHEIL STEPHEN MILLER KATIE STRINGER CODY WILSON SALES REPRESENTATIVES CLASSIFIED (541)3464343 TRINA SHANAMAN CLASSIFIED MANAGER KORALYNN BASHAM KATY GAGNON KER1 SPANGLER CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING ASSOCIATES PRODUCTION (541) 3464381 MICHELE ROSS PRODUCTION MANAGER KIRA PARK PRODUCTION COORDINATOR The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub lished daily Monday through Fri day during the school year by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co. Inc., at the University of Ore gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald operates independently of the University with offices in Suite 300 of the Erb Memorial Union. The Emerald is private property. Unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law. In my opinion The mrv asks mrv questions? Brilliant! Once again, praise to the glorious state of Oregon. Sometimes, we just get it so right. In Portland, jurors have politely yet firmly requested their right to ask ques tions during criminal trials; the practice of questioning from a juror to the judge or witness has previously been limited to civil trials only. Kindergarten teacher Stephen Her mens, however, waved his written question in front of the judge, until fi nally granted his query. Allowing juries to ask questions is an interesting violation of a wall (i.e. The Law) that keeps most people igno rantly, yet not unhappily, out of the system. We the general public don’t need to know what is going on; in stead, we blindly assume that justice is being served. The guilty are prosecut ed; the innocent are set free. Of course, the real world rarely functions in such a way. As anyone who has ever made or heard lawyer jokes knows, there is a reason (bogus, perhaps) that lawyers are called the scum of the earth; Sometimes, lawyers twist justice to make it work best for themselves, their clients and their pocketbooks. Corruption occurs most easily when the little people re main unaware of what is happening; when the system is working for them they complacently assume that it is working out well for everyone else. Just think about the Enron scandal; the CEOs at such a company have the remarkable position of wielding a great amount of power over unin formed investors, who will eventually use their ignorance to buy those CEOs a new swimming pool. AILEE SLATER FURTHER FROM PERFECTION This is why the idea of jury ques tioning in the courtroom is such a good one. Any human interaction is auto matically made more fair to all when proper communication ensues, and all sides of a story are heard. Justice and a lack of knowledge are mutually exclu sive; justice relies on truth, and truth, the truth in the mind of a juror, relies on accurate and clear information. Best about the system of jury ques tioning is that it will probably make lawyers’ jobs easier. If a lawyer truly believes that his or her client is inno cent, then infusing the minds of the jury with truth will surely be the quick est path to an accurate verdict. Thus far, juror questioning has re ceived a mostly positive response. Surely it is difficult to argue with the premise that jurors need and deserve all of the information possible and per tinent to a case. What’s more, it is promising that a system of law (go Ore gon!) has recognized the benefits to creating attentive jurors (preparing to ask questions of their own) who recog nize their own importance within the legal system. If jurors feel as though they are supposed to be mentally in volved in a court case, perhaps those jurors will take their responsibility more seriously. The responsibility ot a juror is a large responsibility indeed. The United States is lucky to (finally) have a sys tem wherein it is not just the educated (usually privileged) making decisions for everyone else. Splitting up the cards of power so that everyone’s hand is a little fairer seems a good path to the values of fairness, and justice. When jurors are allowed to ask questions, they should feel their bur den as legislators more strongly. Indeed, jurors are important creators of the law: In a country that strives to be run by the people, for the people, it is promising and wonderful that Oregon has shown a concrete exam ple of how such a system is supposed to work. It is nothing exciting, and the con cept is hardly new, but it seems pretty great to me: Encouraging jurors to ask questions in the court is an easy way to encourage all of us to increase our in volvement and understanding. You may not be a member of any jury; I certainly am not, nor have ever been. Still, understanding, valued so highly by the Oregon legislature, cer tainly carries through to the course of all of our lives. Every time we make a judgment, or pass a rule for ourselves and others, we ought to ask, “What don’t I know yet?” Too often we think we have found understanding. The problem is that failed communication or mistaken knowledge will only lead to bad judg ment rather than fairness. Our world does not need more ver dicts; it needs more questions. aileeslater@dailyemerald.com OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY ___—.— Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to tetters@dattyemerakj.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic submissions are preferred Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald ■ Editorial Legislative Session 73: Win some, lose some On Friday, Aug. 5, the Oregon Legislature ended one of its longest sessions in history. The results of our lawmakers’ hard work? As usual, education funding came out just OK. With $5.24 billion allotted by the state to fund local schools, some still say that classrooms will continue to grow in size, while money for teachers and school programs will drop. Although the Oregon Legislature has taken a step in the right di rection by increasing education funding by about a quarter of a million dollars from our last two-year cycle, it is unclear whether Oregon has realized what must be done to bring our education up to par with schools across the nation. Of course, beside the new education budget is a piece of legislation requiring high school students to meet more criteria in order to graduate. Four years of English, three of math, and 24 credits per student should be fun to provide, especially when struggling schools have already received the short end of Oregon’s money stick. Like President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act says: Students cannot achieve all that they are capable of when educational leaders and facilities are not well supported. Luckily, not spending too much money on education saved resources, so Oregon could be the first to require a doctor’s pre scription in order to obtain certain types of cold medicine. That way the innocent will be inconvenienced and have few legal al ternatives, whereas methamphetamine cooks will simply turn to other, probably il legal means of creating drugs. Once again, a piece of drug legislation that cuts every which way except at the problem of drug addiction itself. However, on a positive note, it is promising that HB 2485 does some good: It increases treatment facilities for meth-users and classifies dumping meth residue as a felony. Unfortunately, a bill to provide tax breaks for companies that create alternative energy sources, namely biofuel, did not make it to a vote. After a squabble about an amendment, the bill was dead, never to reach the office of Gov. Kulongoski, who had previously mentioned his excitement abut signing the bill. Shame. One exciting and positive result of the session is that Oregon now requires insur ance agencies to offer mental health pa tients the same treatment and benefit op tions as patients with a physical illness. Along with 35 other states, Oregon has now taken an important step toward en suring the health of its residents. Insurance users (usually with lower incomes), who must battle drug addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental illnesses, are now supported by the state in their fight for health. Last but not least Senate Bill 1000 aimed to give some form of equal rights to gay cou ples. The Oregon Legislature, especially its republicans, made it clear that the voices of those backing SB 1000 were not valid or worthy of respect. Republican House Speak er Karen Minnis would not even let the issue of civil unions for gay couples be presented to the House; SB 1000 was dead before it hit the ground, despite a promising yet bitter sweet approval in the Senate. No matter Oregon’s other accomplishments during the 73rd legislative session, many will remem ber 73 as another year when some voices were heard, and some were pushed under the rug.
