PROPOSITION 36 NEUTERS DRUG COURTS PROPOSITION 36 looks and sounds good, but -- as is often the case -- the devil is in the details. It is easy to agree that, "The War on Drugs has been a disaster and it's time to change the way we deal with nonviolent drug offenders." Many of us share the sentiment and the goal of sentencing "convicted" first- and second-time "nonviolent drug possession offenders" to probation revolving around drug treatment instead of county jail or prison. After all, "California is spending more money on prisons than on schools," the liturgy goes. And, according to Proposition 36 proponents and the legislative analyst, "24,000 nonviolent drug possession offenders per year would be diverted to drug treatment in the community instead of being sent to state prison." Passing Proposition 36 could save California $250 million a year for prison operations, $550 million in prison construction, $25 million in parole costs and $40 million for jail operations. The state would provide counties with $60 million in drug treatment funding the first year and $120 million each year thereafter until 2006. Unfortunately, Proposition 36 also could neuter existing drug courts that are already doing some of what it proposes to do with built-in accountability and judicial enforcement. Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties are among the 46 counties with drug courts. Having sprung up within the past decade, such courts take a team approach to drug treatement by involving judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment specialists and probation officers in a collaborative effort to address both a person's problems and underlying causes. Prosecutors and judges use discretion to tailor the court's approach to individual needs and apply sanctions if users violate treatment terms. Judges Peggy Hora and Dick Iglehart, who preside over Alameda County courts, fear their authority and discretion would be compromised by Proposition 36. The current system offers a flexible, tough approach with frequent testing and monitoring. Nationally it has had a 70 percent success rate with 100,000 offenders. National drug czar Barry McCaffrey fears that under Proposition 36 drug courts would be "dismantled from within." Unfortunately, courts are treating too few drug users. We need to make a state commitment to this effective, existing approach without removing the judicial hammer that insures patient accountability and compliance. Rather than scrapping them, we prefer to see more money put into drug courts. State investment in treatment at the community and prison levels is also needed. Judge Iglehart says there are only a few good drug treatment programs to which he can send offenders. Returning thousands of offenders to the streets without proven treatment programs could multiply, not reduce, drug and crime problems. And, demand might give birth to fly-by-night clinics with mere pretenses of treating users. A better approach is for the state to fund strong prison and countywide drug treatment programs. Counseling in California prisons is practically nonexistent and quality programs in communities limited in number. Tom Orloff, Alameda County district attorney and president of the California D.A. association, says Proposition 36 offers first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders "less treatment and less effective treatment" than drug courts. He also fears Proposition 36 would swamp county courts with drug users. Most have limited court facilities and time -- Alameda County takes only about 250 felony cases to trial each year -- and couldn't handle the increased volume. Thus, most drug cases might be dismissed in order to prosecute more serious crimes. Jeff Rubin, deputy D.A. under Orloff, also is suspicious of the "24,000 a year" prison figure for nonviolent offenders. Alameda County has sent about 150 to prison for possession in the past five years. A random sample of 32 found that each defendant would have gone to prison on a more serious charge, if not possession. Possession charges are routinely pleaded down from more serious offenses. Behind most drug possession sentencings are burglary, robbery, drug dealing, assault or other serious crimes that carry much heavier sentences without plea bargaining. A National Institute of Justice's Arrestee and Drug Abuse Monitoring report says that two-thirds of the adults and more than half the juveniles arrested test positive for at least one illicit drug. One of the most troubling statements by Prop. 36 proponents was that during the "first few years everybody is treated as a first offender." Addicted or not, with or without a drug-related record, Prop. 36 would "wipe the slate clean...treat prior drug offenses as not occurring." That is a no way to start. We agree with the need for more and better treatment, but prefer to expand and improve drug courts. Vote no on Proposition 36.
No member comments available...
|