Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/699546
25 maltatoday, SUNDAY, 3 JULY 2016 Opinion The rule of law is 'up in smoke' standards it represented had become too conspicuous to ignore. I have no idea how things will turn out with regard to that particular case; what is evident, however, is that the issue it spotlights is taken very seriously indeed by civil society in America and elsewhere. And so it should be: what is at stake is nothing less than the rule of law… without which, 'society' itself (civil or otherwise) could quite literally fall apart. OK, enough about the Stanford Swimmer. I take it you've guessed where all this is leading to by now. The USA is hardly the only country in the world where the criminal justice system treats people differently according to their status in society. And the example we all saw with such graphic intensity in Malta this week was – in all aspects but one: the crime itself – actually a good deal worse. I won't go over the same arguments I raised in my Wednesday article, other than to update it with the latest two developments. 1) When I wrote that rapper Wiz Khalifa was treated differently from any other lesser mortal caught smoking pot in this country… it was BEFORE 11 people were arrested at the Isle of MTV concert for the same offence. 2) More photographic evidence has since emerged (if any were needed, after Wiz smoked a joint on TVM) showing him rolling another spliff in his hotel room. Why is this worse (again, I stress, only in terms of law enforcement) than Turner's case? Because unlike Wiz Khalifa… Brock Turner was, in fact, arrested and tried for his crime, just like anyone else. It was the sentencing that was questionable, not the process that led to a criminal conviction. In Khalifa's case, there was no criminal justice process at all. I shudder to think what the reaction would have been in the US, had it transpired that there was enough evidence to arrest someone… but the police chose not to, because he was a 'nice kid '. Well, that is exactly what happened here this week. There was enough evidence – evidence aplenty, judging by what the Maltese police usually understand by the word – to arrest Wiz Khalifa along with the rest of the 11 pot-smokers… yet the police chose to ignore it. Is that even legal? Can the police simply pick and choose whom to apply a law to, and whom to let off the hook? I for one don't think so… and if I'm right, it also indirectly means that all 11 of the people arrested last Tuesday (and the 26 arrested at Earth Garden last month… and pretty much anyone who's ever been arrested on pot-related charges in this country) have grounds for a Constitutional case against the government, as victims of blatant discrimination. Naturally, however, that is not how the police themselves view the situation. They even released a statement saying that the photographs had been 'investigated ', but that no evidence of marijuana- smoking had been found. Sort of makes you wonder what shape, manner and form this 'investigation' actually took. Was Khalifa brought in for questioning? (I somehow doubt it, as there wasn't anything on Sky News). Was his hotel room searched? Did the police speak to any of the other people visible in those photographs? And how did they miss the teenie-weenie detail that Khalifa actually captioned the photograph with the declaration: "I smoked a joint at the Blue Lagoon today"? No evidence, indeed. But while the police's PR department is busy drawing up replies to those questions – which technically should be coming from the ministries responsible for justice and the police: after all, both Owen Bonnici and Carmelo Abela have an interest in establishing why the rule of law clearly broke down on this occasion – let us see how the police statement holds up to other, analogous cases. I already mentioned the 26 arrested at Earth Garden for a substance 'thought to be marijuana'. Well, the substance in Khalifa's joint was also 'thought to be marijuana' (by Khalifa himself, who even confirmed his suspicion in writing). So why is one case of 'might-be marijuana' prosecuted, but not the other? Incidentally, it is worth remembering that the police, on another occasion (September 2013), had arrested and prosecuted someone merely for admitting – while under interrogation for an unrelated offence – to having once smoked marijuana in the past. No traces of the drug were actually found in his possession at the time; his mere confession alone, in the absence of 'habeas corpus', was considered sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Yet suddenly, neither photographic evidence nor public confession is considered enough to secure even an arrest. I mean, honestly. Who do these people think they're kidding? Looks me to me that Wiz Khalifa smoked more than just a little marijuana while here in Malta. He also rolled up all the credibility of our country's entire criminal justice system into a big fat spliff, and set it up in smoke. People ouldn't have complained so much, if it were a case of only one random individual getting let off lightly, by a system that was otherwise equally strict with everyone How did they miss the teenie-weenie detail that Khalifa actually captioned the photograph with the declaration: "I smoked a joint at the Blue Lagoon today"?