PROPOSED CURE HEALS NOTHING

Proposition 36 is the reverse of "three strikes" mandatory sentencing
laws. Drafted by defense attorneys, the ballot measure would force
judges to prescribe lenient drug treatment even when they think a
tougher sanction would be more beneficial. They're both bad ideas
forced upon California's electorate.

What's needed is not a tit-for-tat in which lawyers use voters to play
out their courtroom battles statewide, but a coordinated effort to
effectively reform the state's drug treatment and sentencing system.
Voters should reject Proposition 36.

In recent years, liberal and conservative crime experts have compiled
a mountain of evidence supporting the same conclusion: The nation's
war on drugs has been a failure, punishing addicts with long
imprisonment only to have them resume their drug habits after
release--likely guaranteeing a return to jail.

The latest such study, an examination of California drug policy
enforcement released Tuesday by the Justice Policy Institute, finds
counties that sharply increased their drug offender imprisonment rates
in the last two decades saw less decline in the most serious felony
offenses than counties with more lenient drug sentencing practices.
The bottom line? There are many factors that influence crime, and
simply imprisoning drug users is no cure.

Proposition 36 responds by requiring judges to sentence nonviolent
drug offenders to treatment instead of prison. Unfortunately, the
initiative is too rigidly worded. By severely limiting judges'
sentencing options, it deprives them of the carrots and sticks they
need to ensure that drug offenders remain where they belong: in treatment.

The ballot measure is hardly the threat to public safety that its
fear-mongering opponents portray. For example, Proposition 36
opponents claim that it would benefit sex offenders who use "date
rape" drugs, even though the initiative excludes drugs used to rape or
otherwise harm others.

Blatant scare tactics aside, Proposition 36 rightly troubles state
drug court judges because it would bar them from using often-effective
sanctions like "shock incarceration"--immediately jailing offenders
who test positive for drugs during treatment. Superior Court Judge
Stephen Marcus, who pioneered drug courts in Los Angeles County in
1994, says such "shock incarcerations" are vital to successful
treatment: "You need to intervene at the earliest possible time and
let them know there are consequences" for lapsing.

In 1994, California voters inappropriately tied judges' hands by
passing the "three strikes" initiative written by district attorneys,
which forced judges to impose unduly harsh sanctions on people
convicted of minor offenses, like stealing a soft drink.

Now the pendulum swings back, and voters face another inappropriate
"reform." Real reform would start with expansion of the state's
existing drug courts, which put offenders into treatment and then
closely supervise their treatment compliance with counseling and drug
tests. Drug courts are highly effective but poorly funded; only about
7% of nonviolent drug offenders in California are lucky enough to be
sent to them.

Specifically, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George
should follow the lead of the chief judge of New York's Court of
Appeals, Judith Kaye, who in July ordered that drug courts in the
state be dramatically expanded to serve all nonviolent drug offenders.

Proposition 36 has usefully highlighted the need to reform
California's failed drug sentencing system. But the specific reforms
it proposes would likely do more harm than good.