COMMITTED TO DRUG TREATMENT

THE Alameda County District Attorney's Office is, and always has been,
deeply committed to drug treatment and rehabilitation. We were centrally
involved in the creation of California's first drug court, a then-novel
concept of jurisprudence focused on treatment for drug users. We have
developed programs not mandated by statute to defer prosecution for
first-time offenders and to motivate young dealers to seek employment and
schooling.

The rehabilitation of addicts significantly reduces the number of economic
and violent crimes committed to support drug use. It also frees the
afflicted citizen from the slavery of addiction and all its attendant
personal costs. Of course, all of this is of critical importance to the
citizens of Alameda County.

We did, indeed, oppose Proposition 36 because it is a poorly conceived and
sloppily written statute, which makes it difficult to achieve its own
purpose. We were certainly not alone. Many groups and organizations,
including The Oakland Tribune, expressed opposition to the proposed law.

Numerous drug treatment providers and drug court defendants also opposed the
initiative. These folks know better than anyone the value of brief custody
time when necessary to facilitate detoxification and a commitment to
recovery when the impulse to use is overwhelming.

I cannot count the number of drug court participants who have hugged the
district attorney and thanked the court for placing them in custody as part
of a course of treatment, helping them to become clean and sober and giving
them back their lives.

In light of the misinformation put forth by the drafters of the proposition,
it is likely that California voters believed that they were voting for what
they already had in Alameda County -- a successful drug court devoted to
treatment and rehabilitation.

Proposition 36 is now law, and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office
is committed to its success. It is the judge, not the district attorney, who
determines a person's preconviction custody status. Our opposition to the
wholesale release of all drug defendants prior to case resolution is not an
attempt to circumvent the law but rather an attempt to realize its stated
purpose.

Because of the overwhelming control that addiction has on the lives of its
victims, those addicts most in need of treatment are least likely to return
to court. The result is a delay or prevention of treatment, in direct
contradiction to the spirit of the law.

Moreover, in Oakland, virtually all Proposition 36 cases are set for trial
when the defendant is out of custody, because defense attorneys have
correctly perceived that there is nothing to lose in light of the new law.
This, too, inevitably results in treatment delays.

The Alameda County District Attorney's Office is proud of its role as a
leader and role model in the drug court movement. We continue our strong
commitment to this most important cause, notwithstanding the additional
challenges presented by Proposition 36.