PROP. 5 WOULD OVERHAUL SENTENCING OF DRUG OFFENDERS

The far-reaching measure would increase treatment and eliminate
incarceration for those convicted of nonviolent, drug-related crimes.
But opponents see another agenda.

SACRAMENTO -- In a state that has consistently boosted penalties for
criminals, packing California's prisons to bursting, sponsors of the
far-reaching Proposition 5 are asking voters in November to go in the
opposite direction.

The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, funded in part by
billionaire George Soros, would be "the most ambitious sentencing and
prison reform in U.S. history," according to the Drug Policy Alliance
Network, a primary sponsor.

By 2010, the measure would commit the state to spending at least $460
million a year, mostly to increase treatment -- and eliminate
incarceration -- for those who commit nonviolent crimes involving
drugs or fueled by them.

Even when drugs aren't involved, the state no longer could seek to
return many ex-convicts to prison for low-level parole violations, as
occurred nearly 18,000 times last year, or revoke parole for actions
that would qualify as misdemeanor crimes.

Parole terms for some offenders would decrease from three years to
six months. A new prison bureaucracy devoted to rehabilitation would
be created. And possession an ounce or less of marijuana would be an
infraction, instead of a misdemeanor.

The measure could eventually cost Californians up to $1 billion, but
also could ultimately save that much by reducing incarceration,
according to the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst.

Opponents contend that the drug treatment offered in lieu of
incarceration would be toothless, a "get-out-of-jail-free card" for
addicts. They say the Drug Policy Alliance Network -- a spinoff of
Soros' New York-based Open Society Institute, which fights against
punitive drug laws -- is using the initiative to chip away at its
true agenda: legalizing drugs.

"It is very well-crafted to move several steps in the direction of
decriminalization," said Douglas B. Marlowe, chief of science, policy
and law for the National Assn. of Drug Court Professionals. The
backers "don't think that drugs should be illegal to begin with."

Law enforcement groups said the initiative would be difficult to
change, requiring a four-fifths vote of the state Legislature, and
lead to an increase in crime. And they object to a provision that
would allow the expunging of some records, saying that, for example,
a methamphetamine addict who steals cars can avoid prison, if a judge
agrees, and have his record sealed after completing treatment.

Opponents have raised less than $300,000 for their campaign against
the initiative, mainly from law enforcement groups and a San Diego
County Indian tribe, the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, state
records show. Supporters have raised more than $5 million, mostly
from wealthy donors in other states.

The out-of-state contributors are interested in prison and sentencing
issues nationally, said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, the backers' deputy
campaign manager. California, in part because of its size and its
giant prison system, "has a significant impact" on the national
debate, she said.

Dooley-Sammuli said the measure would advance sensible policy with
respect to drug treatment, prisons and at-risk youth, for whom
programs are also funded.

"It's looking at all of the places in the system where our policies
are failing," she said.

Dan Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice in San Francisco, said the initiative is needed to
combat the power wielded by law enforcement lobbyists in Sacramento.

"My biggest reason for supporting it is its emphasis on parole
reform, which we've never been able to get through the Legislature
because all the interest groups come in and block it," he said.

Proposition 5 would require dozens of new employees in the sprawling
state prison and parole system, which already costs more than $10
billion a year. The agency would become two-headed, with a new
secretary for rehabilitation and parole appointed by the governor to
a six-year term, in addition to the existing secretary for corrections.

Each of the state's 33 prisons would be required to have a chief
deputy warden for rehabilitation. And inmates would have to be given
rehabilitation programs, which often are unavailable, at least 90
days before their release.

New state boards would be created, including one with 23 members to
oversee treatment programs and another with 21 members, including a
former inmate, overseeing parole. The new parole oversight board
would implement additional credits that could allow inmates to cut
their sentences by more than half -- the maximum they can reduce them
now -- if they complete treatment, work in prison and behave.

The existing Board of Parole Hearings, which revokes and grants
parole but is heavily backlogged, would increase from 17 to 29
members, and the state Senate would lose its power to confirm them.

On the drug treatment side, the measure would vastly expand an
earlier initiative, Proposition 36, approved in 2000, which
appropriated $120 million a year initially for drug treatment. The
state allocated $108 million to those programs this year.

UCLA researchers who studied the original measure found it saved the
state money on incarceration costs but said only a third of
participants completed the program and many spent too little time in treatment.

The new system would expand the pool of criminals who could take
part, creating three "tracks" for offenders to receive treatment,
including, at the discretion of judges, those who commit nonviolent
crimes such as theft to feed their habits. Depending on their crimes,
their records and their number of treatment failures, they would
gradually move from the least intensive programs to the most
intensive -- drug courts -- and the possibility of jail or prison.

Advocates say that some of the initial sanctions that can be imposed
on offenders who have problems, such as performing community trash
pickup, are appropriate. But judges complain that they too rarely
will be able to threaten incarceration, which they believe is most
effective at coercing offenders to cooperate.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan said the
measure would be "like throwing money down a rat hole."

"Most drug court judges are in favor of treatment for these people,"
Tynan said. "We want it to meaningful."