DRUG CRIMES

Why Punish Them So Harshly?

Ever run into someone high on crack, or whacked out on meth? The jabbering
and ferocity such drugs induce are good reminders of why society considers
them a menace. But trying to squelch drug use is one thing; treating
drugusers like common criminals is another. In truth, drug offenders aren't
typical crooks at all. They're addicts, in need of treatment.

But in Minnesota, that isn't what they get. Instead, many are locked up for
years on end. In fact, this state's drug sentences are among the harshest
in the nation. So says a new report by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
Commission (easily found at www.msgc.state.mn.us), and the detail it offers
is astonishing.

Consider the report's comparison of this state's penalty for possession of
10 grams of cocaine with those of neighboring states: In South Dakota, that
offense carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years. In Wisconsin, it can
bring 15. But in Minnesota, the maximum sentence for exactly the same crime
is 30 years behind bars. That sentence is akin to the penalties Minnesota
prescribes for armed robbery, kidnapping, many serious sex offenses and
manslaughter.

The only heartening news to be gleaned from this report is that judges seem
to see how preposterous this sentencing system is. They're far more likely
to give shorter-than-prescribed sentences to drug offenders than to those
convicted of "equivalent" nondrug crimes -- especially as the supposed
"severity level" of crimes increases. But even so, Minnesota is sending
drug offenders to prison by the trainload: In 1990, the report notes, drug
offenders represented nearly 12 percent of new prison admissions; by 2002,
the percentage was 30 percent. Drug criminals took up 9 percent of prison
space in 1990; in 2002, they filled nearly a quarter of prison beds.

How did this happen? The short answer involves repeated legislative
meddling during the last half of the 1980s, which resulted in markedly
stiffer penalties for all sorts of drug crimes. That tough-on-crime tactic
may have warmed some indignant hearts, but it did nothing to heighten
public safety or help addicts. All it has done is pack prisons, suck
millions of dollars from taxpayers' pockets and raise serious questions
about justice.

Criminologists and other researchers have argued for years that addiction
is largely a public-health problem that requires a medical response.
Indeed, treatment for addiction is known to work as well as treatment for
many other chronic physical ailments. And as more than one study has found,
the strategy costs a mere fraction of the average expense of incarcerating
a drug offender. If Minnesota started diverting addicts from prison to
treatment, the Guidelines Commission says, it could prevent 576 prison
admissions and save nearly $31 million each year.

So what's the hitch? There isn't one -- except that public officials have
neglected for years to build the community-based "treatment infrastructure"
that would assure drug offenders end up where they plainly ought to be.
Lawmakers must scramble to do it right now -- even as they undo the cruel
and wasteful damage they've inflicted by forcing thousands of nonviolent
addicts to languish behind bars.