top
California
California
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

The universally unconstitutional war on drugs

by Gavin R. Putland
The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in ALL jurisdictions.

In the "war on drugs", the presumption of innocence is not collateral damage. It is a deliberate target: if other people plant drugs on you..., you must prove that your possession of the drugs was unwitting (which you can't). This situation is manifestly incompatible with the rule of law, because the power to convict... is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence. There is no clearer case of a "government of laws" being usurped by a "government of men".

The purported reversal of the onus of proof, being contrary to the rule of law, is unconstitutional for at least three reasons:

First, the mere existence of a constitution, written or unwritten, presupposes the rule of law and therefore invalidates any legislation or judicial precedent incompatible with the rule of law.

Second, the mere existence of a court presupposes the rule of law and therefore precludes the court from entertaining any proposition incompatible with the rule of law...

Third, the legislative power is limited to the making of law, which by definition must be compatible with the rule of law...

Wherever there is an overriding prohibition on cruel or unusual or degrading punishment, there is a fourth reason, namely that the reversal of the onus of proof foreseeably leads to punishment of innocent people, such punishment being cruel or unusual or degrading by reason of their innocence.

Therefore, if you are on the jury in the trial of a person charged with possession of a prohibited drug... and if you are told that the "law" requires the defendant to prove that the possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to... put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict on that basis...

Indeed, reversing the onus of proof protects the bosses of the drug trade: if the bosses arrange for the drugs to be in the "possession" of some unsuspecting person, and if that person is caught, that person takes the rap and the investigation never reaches the bosses...

Full text: "The universally unconstitutional war on drugs" (3rd ed.), by Gavin R. Putland.

Add Your Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
malcolm kyle
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 9:41PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network