YOLO JUDGES OPPOSE 'REHABILITATION ACT'

Normally, judges take no positions on propositions. However, when
ballot measures directly impact the administration of justice, Judges
can and do voice their opinions. Proposition 5 will be on the
November ballot and calls itself the "Nonviolent Offender
Rehabilitation Act." It purports to support drug courts and
rehabilitation, but it doesn't accomplish the mission. We write this
op-ed article as concerned Judges of the Yolo Superior Court who are
or have been actively involved in running drug courts. In our
opinion, this proposition will have a serious and negative impact on
the administration of justice in California. There are literally
dozens of defects in this complex proposal - too numerous to detail
in this brief op-ed piece. Here are some of the more significant
defects we see in this proposition:

. This is an initiative written by an advocacy group. It is very
long, encompassing 36 single-spaced pages in a relatively small font.
It makes intricate and detailed amendments to a significant number of
existing statutes and executive policies. We doubt that 5 percent of
the voters of California will have read the entire text of this new
law before they vote on it. Is this a good way to make state law?

. Prop. 5 imposes dramatically increased workloads on Courts and
Judges without providing any increase in the number of Judges or
needed funding. The increased cost to the Los Angeles Superior Court
alone has been calculated at $63 million per year with an additional
183,000 hearings required. Orange County estimates that its caseload
will increase some 300 percent.

. The estimated cost of Prop. 5 is $1 billion annually, and none of
this funding may be used for drug testing. Anyone who runs drug
courts knows that drug testing is a critical component to supervised
treatment and accountability of substance abusers.

. Drug courts as we know them - which tend to focus on first time
offenders - would be virtually destroyed. Prop. 5 would require
courts to take into their drug court system offenders who have
suffered up to 5 convictions of any offense within a 30-month period.
Effectively, the target population of drug courts will become the
most incorrigible and difficult to treat offenders at the expense of
new or first time offenders.

. Addicted defendants will be permitted five violations of probation
or treatment failures based on drug use and judges will be unable to
meaningfully intervene until the sixth violation.

. The proposition dramatically restricts a judge's ability to impose
some jail time as a sanction in drug court. Judges who operate drug
courts have found that the ability to impose a brief stint in jail -
even the possibility of that imposition - can have dramatically
positive effects in convincing drug addicted defendants that it is
better to stay in the treatment program and stay clean rather than
risk the wrath of the Judge. This proposition removes that tool from Judges.

. The most serious sanction for the most serious felony offenders in
this system is one year in the county jail for termination from the
program. No prison can be imposed even for non-drug related felonies.
In our experience, this provides no incentive to seriously addicted offenders.

We believe in drug courts and the real possibility that drug courts
can help people escape addictions and turn their lives around. We
believe that Proposition 5, while well-intentioned, does far more
harm than it provides benefits. We have serious concerns that drug
addicts who run afoul of the criminal justice system will not be
well-served by this proposition. If this proposition passes, we
predict that more addicts will not succeed in drug courts and in
treatment. That hurts the folks who are addicted to drugs and it
harms society as a whole.