Imágenes de páginas

346 Alaska




(19) Harrison argues in the alternative defendant as a second and third felony that even if the prohibition was in effect offender were proper; and (4) defendant's when he brought alcohol into St. Mary's, he escape sentence was not clearly mistaken. was deprived of adequate notice that his

Affirmed. conduct was criminal because preclearance for the election had not been obtained. This argument is without merit. Harrison 1. Escape 1, 6 does not allege that he detrimentally relied Escape under Alaska law is a continuon a good faith belief that the St. Mary's ing offense; defendant relying on necessity election had not been precleared and was to justify escape must present some evipotentially invalid. In fact, Harrison ad- dence justifying his continued absence mitted that he was fully aware of the ille- from custody as well as his initial depargality of his actions. He cannot now claim ture. AS 01.10.010, 11.81.320. he lacked notice.

2. Escape 66 The conviction is AFFIRMED.

Evidence that State had failed to provide defendant with adequate medical attention while he was present and to meet his needs for psychological counseling was insufficient to raise necessity defense to justify defendant's escape. AS 01.10.010, 11.81.320.

3. Escape 11 Jeffery WELLS, Appellant,

Evidence that defendant, while in pris

on, faced immediate threat of physical injuSTATE of Alaska, Appellee.

ry by gang of fellow prisoners outraged

that he had warned another inmate of Nos. 7479, 7663.

gang's intent to hijack some marijuana, Court of Appeals of Alaska.

without evidence indicating that defend

ant's continued absence from prison followSept. 7, 1984.

ing escape resulted from duress, or otherwise justifying defendant's continued ab

sence, did not warrant jury instruction on Defendant was convicted in Superior

defense of necessity to justify escape. AS Court, First Judicial District, Juneau,

01.10.010, 11.81.320. Rodger W. Pegues, J., of fraudulent use of a credit card, and sentenced as a second 4. Criminal Law 1202.7 felony offender based on prior Oregon con- Defendant who was convicted of esviction. Following his escape from prison, cape while serving two-year presumptive defendant was convicted in the Superior sentence for fraudulent use of a credit card Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, was properly treated as a second felony Daniel A. Moore, Jr., J., of escape, sen- offender following fraudulent use of credit tenced as a third felony offender, and he card conviction and third felony offender appealed. The Court of Appeals, Single following escape conviction where he had ton, J., held that: (1) escape under Alaska been previously convicted of burglary in law is a continuing offense; defendant re- the second degree in Oregon under statute lying on necessity to justify escape must substantially identical to Alaska second-depresent some evidence justifying his contin- gree burglary statute, although Oregon ued absence from custody as well as his court had reduced felony conviction to misinitial departure; (2) evidence was insuffi- demeanor at sentencing. AS 11.46.285, 11.cient to establish necessity defense to justi- 46.310, 11.56.310(a)(1)(A), 12.55.145(a)(2); fy defendant's escape; (3) decisions to treat ORS 161.705, 164.215.





SEPTEMBER 29, 1988

[ocr errors]

Chairman Rangel, members of this Select Committee, I welcome your invitation to testify regarding the proposals to legalize drugs. As you know, I am an ex-drug abuser and ex-offender, but I ask you

to hear my

testimony as not only coming from those two life experiences

because today, I am also a husband, parent, grandparent, tax payer,

a professional and productive member of the Washington, D.C. community. Hopefully, my testimony will reflect these dimensions and my concern

about drug abuse.

If I understand the purpose of this hearing correctly, it has been called to discuss the efficacy of legalizing narcotics.

To my

knowledge, no one

as clearly stated which narcotics we're concerned

with or if the proponents of legalization mean all narcotics that are currently illegal. This being my understanding, I hope my statement will still have relevancy when this issue is decided.

A couple of weeks ago, I watched the very skillful Mr. Koppel

on his Nightline program attempt to get some clarity on this point.

In my estimation, he was frustrated in his attempt, but what was very

clear is that everyone had an opinion based on their own assumptior.s.

Mine no doubt will fall in that same category.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm very concerned about drug abuse in

all of it's dimensions; prevention, addiction, treatment and the

private and public consequences of this destructive behavior.


quently, I will support any proposal that works positively to reduce

or eliminate drug abuse.

I do not view the the legalization of narco

tics as

one of those positive proposals; and this is based on what

may be a false assumption that the proposal is made as a measure to

reduce drug abuse. Perhaps I'm wrong? Come to think of it, I've heard proponents say many things, but to be honest, I haven't heard

any one say "Legalize Today, Be Drug Free Tommorrow".

page 2

If the proponents of legalization are not on the team to fight against

drug abuse, then their proposal would be better received in another


Perhaps at a stock holders meeting of some of the major

pharmaceutical companies. But, there are two things I have heard

proponents say over and over again. One, is that legalization will

take the tremendous, obscene, illegal profits out of drug sales.


is that as a result of the profits being removed, the drug related

murders, that many areas of the country are plagued with will be reduced

or possibly eliminated.

To both of these statements, my bottom line

comment is, you got to be mad or you must think I am.

Let's just look at number one, that legalization will take the

illegal profits out of drug sales. Yes, it will.

Illegality will be

removed, , but the legal profits will still be tremendous and still be


The style, perhaps the color, and the risks of the drug dealer

will change, but is that what we're really concerned with?

Legal or

illegal, the goals of the drug dealer remains the same, to sell drugs. I'm sure that pharmaceutical companies and their stock holders would

an increased value in their portfolios. I doubt very seriously


if there would be a corresponding decrease in the incidents of drug

abuse. The only things drug abusers are interested in are who has the best dope and an uninterupted supply. I'm sure that current drug

addicts would certainly enjoy those benefits, plus the added advantage

of quality control that big business would provide.

On the other hand,

their parents, loved ones and community would still have a dope fiend to contend with. Whatever the causes of drug addiction, none of them

will be addressed by legalization.

Conversely, many more unanswered

questions will be created, i.e. will employment become more or less

page 3

available for those legal drug abusers who have been chronically

unemployed? Will the treatment centers that city, state, and Federal

Governments haven't been able to provide suddenly become available

for those who want treatment?

Will all treatment be private, only

for those who can afford it? Will the legal drug dealers provide treatment? I think not, if the tobacco and alcohol industry can be

used as an example. Will legislation be written to protect the civil rights of drug addicts in the areas of employment, housing, insurance,

right to hold public office, etc? Or in legalizing drugs would we also be legally relegating drug abusers to a completely new, lesser status, not exactly criminal, but much less that what we currently think

of as the status of an American Citizen?

Can our already overburdened

social service and health systems handle, what I believe will be, an

increased need for their services?

I'm certain our new drug dealers

will be as skilled as other large corporations at finding tax loopholes, so let's not count on them to pay for the cost of their human pollution. I firmly believe that those who are in favor of legalization simply

want a piece of the action with no more concern for the drug abuser and

the community than the current drug lords.

They will also share the

same need to increase the market and their individual market share.

Perhaps gang shoot outs in Southeast will become a thing of the past,

but their competitive advertising campaigns could be just as deadly.

When I look at their second statement, that legalization will reduce the number of drug related murders, I am not totally convinced.

First, let me abuse semantics just a bit and change drug related murders

to drug related deaths.

When I hear drug related murders, I envision

shoot outs in the street with the possibility of innocent people being killed; gangland style executions which are documented and glorified

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »