The Jessica Williams Case: Missing the Larger Picture

 

Despite the guilty verdict in the Jessica Williams care, there remain larger issues here, only some of which have been covered in the mainstream media and in the courtroom.  This case is about gender inequality; it=s about the Awar on drugs@; it=s about the controversial issue of Adriving under the influence@ and the almost religious fanaticism of those on the extreme edge of this particular issue, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).  And it is also about our Azero tolerance@ toward youthful indiscretions.

In a commentary I wrote for City Life last year (ALet Them Not Die in Vain,@ April 6, 2000) I raised several of these issues, including:  what were these kids doing in the juvenile justice system in the first place, given the minor nature of their Acrimes@ (mostly what are called Astatus offenses@ that apply to those under 18, such as curfew violation, truancy, and running away from home).  I pointed out that at one time we used to treat such Acrimes@ informally, within our own communities, not within some often impersonal, bureaucratic legal institution like the Ajuvenile court.@

And why were they out there cleaning up trash along what amounts to a Aspeedway@ - Interstate 15 (it is ironic that this accident took place literally right next to the NASCAR Speedway)?  It is because we are a very punitive society and have become even more so during the past 25 years or so.  We demand that people who violate the law (especially children) Atake responsibility@ and that the public gets their Ajust deserts@ through our draconian laws.  Then we have the absurd Azero tolerance@ policies.  By seeking Apunishment@ we aim to Asend a message@ so that these offenders and others will Alearn a lesson.@  Hogwash!  We’ve created more problems than we’ve ever had before (such as Awidening the net@ of social control to the most minor problems).

Then we have the spectacle of the draconian Awar on drugs@ and overzealous politicians who think that there is some simple formula to determine who is and who is not Aimpaired@ and, moreover, that you can legislate morality - which has always failed miserably.

Then there is the issue of Jessica herself, a young woman who, like so many other women with well above average intelligence and skills have to seek employment in the seedy side of life among the topless dancing profession in order to earn a decent income.  And it is common knowledge that topless dancers are encouraged to use various drugs (including ecstasy) to help them cope with such obvious exploitation.  It is part of the lifestyle of topless dancing and similar occupations.  Why has this issue never been raised?

Then there=s the stance taken by MADD, which has reached what I would call religious fanaticism.  In the Review-Journal (AFather fears for daughter,@ February 11, 2001), Sandy Heverly, one of the original founders of the local MADD chapter and now head of Stop DUI, exemplifies the often simplistic and narrow views of those who take such extreme positions.  She is quoted as follows: AShe [Jessica] was a 20-year-old woman who made a decision to use illegal drugs and endanger the lives of everybody who was on the roadway with her.@  Viewing the world in simplistic black and white terms, Heverly said she has no sympathy at all toward Jessica Williams, saying: AIt all comes down to a matter of choice, and that is the choice she made.@  Moreover, in another article (Review-Journal, Feb. 23) she challenged anyone Ato say that they would allow their children to ride on a school bus with a driver with THC (marijuana) in his bloodstream.@  Actually, someone could have any number of substances in their bloodstream and perform such a job quite well, as testing would show the effects of such drugs several days after use.  Monday=s bus driver could have used marijuana or even got rip-roaring drunk the previous Friday and still have it in their system.  Those with such extreme views apparently believe they do not need to read any literature on the subject of drug abuse.  Such research may deal a harsh blow to their simplistic view.

Ms. Heverly also reaches the absurd and extreme conclusion that if the prosecutor does not get a conviction, then we Awould see far more people choosing to drive under the influence of marijuana.@  Nonsense!  No scientific evidence exists to support such a view.  People do not merely Achoose@ to drive Aunder the influence@ for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the term Aunder the influence@ lacks any scientific precision, despite claims to the contrary by legislators and Ms. Heverly.  It is almost as if Ms. Heverly is saying that Jessica Williams suddenly decided, on that fateful day, to use marijuana and ecstasy, get into her van with the sole purpose of looking for some kids to run down!  Sorry, but human behavior is just a little more complex than that.

Finally, one more issue needs to be addressed, namely that of “closure.”  This has become one of those Abuzz-words@ that have become so popular in recent years. The dictionary defines closure as Aa bringing to an end; conclusion.@  As it applies to criminal cases, the word is inappropriate, for there is really no Aend@ when you lose a loved one, even if the perpetrator is put to death.  AClosure@ is a myth and misleads victims into supporting harsh sentencing laws, thinking that this will help in the healing process.  I challenge Sandy Heverly or anyone else to cite one case where Aclosure@ has occurred.  Neither the victims’ families nor Jessica Williams herself will ever find Aclosure.@  Jessica has already been given a life sentence, for this tragedy will haunt her until she dies.  But the Sandy Heverlys of the world want even more vengeance.

 

Las Vegas City Life, 3/22/2001.