PROP. 36 WOULD BE DEATH KNELL FOR DRUG COURTS

Orange County's Innovative Program Is A Resounding Success Because It Holds
Addicts Accountable.

Our highly innovative and successful drug courts in Orange County are facing
a threat to their existence in November. Proposition 36, the "Substance
Abuse and Crime Prevention Act" initiative, which purports to support drug
court treatment, will actually dismantle effective drug court programs.
These programs have consistently produced outstanding results in treating
nonviolent, addicted offenders not only locally but also nationwide.

Drug court programs have been and continue to be effective because they can
impose strict sanctions. Participants are subject to search and seizure
during the program, and are contacted frequently by probation and law
enforcement personnel to ensure their compliance with program requirements.

In Orange County, adult drug courts started in the former Superior Court in
Santa Ana in 1995. This program, which forms a collaboration of all local
justice agencies and treatment, has expanded to all justice centers of the
unified Superior Court. There also is a juvenile drug court in operation.

Since 1995, approximately 1,100 people have been accepted into the Orange
County programs, and there are currently more than 500 in them. There are
275 program graduates countywide, and based upon periodic criminal record
checks, 90% have remained arrest-free since graduation. There have been 12
drug-free babies born to mothers in the program since inception.

Proponents of the initiative previously spearheaded Proposition 215, the
marijuana initiative, and now want California to again move in the direction
of legalization of hard-core drugs. Under the initiative, a defendant would
have no incentive to accept the authority of the drug court. The personality
of the addict is lacking in self-discipline, and most would opt for a
program that has little or no sanctions, similar to the one outlined in the
initiative. Drug courts are distinct in that participants must adhere to a
strict accountability program in which both treatment services and probation
supervision are supported by frequent and random urine testing, court
appearances, 12-step meeting attendance, regular counseling, job training or
full-time employment.

There is currently a drug diversion law in California's Penal Code that
allows qualified individuals charged with drug possession offenses to
complete a drug education program and have their charge dismissed.
Unfortunately, this law is highly ineffective because defendants simply do
not attend. Recently, I issued more than 30 arrest warrants for defendants
who failed to comply with the requirements of that law. They would have
received a dismissal if they had just completed the program. The initiative
is similar in many ways to this weak drug diversion law. Does it make sense
to create another drug diversion program when the one we have does not work?

Should this initiative pass, police agencies would be unlikely to use their
limited resources to arrest, write reports and store evidence on drug
possession cases when the courts effectively would be powerless in meting
out punishment to change the defendant's addictive behavior. This initiative
also would add to clogged court calendars because there would be no risk in
going to trial.

Even if convicted, one would receive only probation. Moreover, those who
participate in drug treatment programs and for whatever reason find that
they are no longer amenable to the treatment, may have another court hearing
to change their treatment provider. The only real authority provided to the
court under this initiative is that upon a third violation, the court can
"drop the hammer," sentencing the defendant to a maximum of 30 days in
custody. Is this an effective punishment for repeated violations?

The touted War on Drugs may not have produced the desired results. Perhaps
too much in resources addressed the supply side and interdiction efforts and
not enough resources were allocated to address the demand side, trying to
change the lives of addicts caught in the endless cycle of addiction and
crime.

Treatment does cost money and the national cost estimate for the typical
18-month drug court program is about $3,500 per individual. Should an addict
be incarcerated at the local or state level, the cost estimate is $21,243
yearly.

The cost ratio here is apparent and drug court is a good investment for the
taxpaying community. Effective outpatient treatment in the drug court model
is the answer, not an initiative based on a model that has proved to be
ineffective.

Please take time to read both sides of the issue carefully. Proposition 36
needs to be defeated. In the last 10 years the drug court movement has
restored the effectiveness of drug treatment with a collaborative approach
providing meaningful sanctions for program violations. Legalization of drugs
will provide no remedy to the community or those who are addicted.