3 CRIME INITIATIVES AWAIT VOTERS IN NOVEMBER

They're not dueling initiatives. But a pair of anti-crime measures on
the Nov. 4 state ballot could hardly be more different in their
approach to improving California's criminal justice system.

Proposition 5 would divert more drug addicts and nonviolent offenders
from prison to rehabilitation programs. Proposition 6 would set aside
money for anti-crime agencies and put more convicts - gang members in
particular - behind bars.

One would shrink the prison system, the other make it bigger.

The resulting battle has backers of the measures trading accusations
- - not only about whether the proposals would work, but whether the
other side's motives are pure.

Prop. 5, opponents say, is just a step toward legalizing drugs. Those
who oppose Prop. 6 call it a money grab by law enforcement.

"They are definitely looking at the criminal justice system from
different ends of the binoculars," said San Francisco Sheriff Michael
Hennessey, who supports Prop. 6 and has not taken a position on Prop. 5.

The question for voters is which of the views - if either one - is
worth an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

The debate comes as many Bay Area residents worry about an increase
in homicides and robberies in the past few years, and as state
prisons face a crisis.

Inmates in Gyms

The state now spends $10 million a year on more than 170,000 inmates,
some of whom are housed in gymnasiums because of prison overcrowding.
Nearly 60 percent of inmates freed from prison for the first time
return within three years, records show.

Prop. 5 is designed to rehabilitate offenders by sending more to drug
treatment. More would be eligible than are now, and they would have
more chances to complete treatment, even if they broke rules. The
measure would also reduce parole terms for prisoners who commit
drug-related or nonviolent crimes.

Expanding treatment programs could cost taxpayers more than $1
billion a year, but a similar amount may be shaved from incarceration
costs, said the state legislative analyst. Separately, the analyst
said, California could save $2.5 billion now slated for prisons that
wouldn't have to be built.

"Whether we like these people or not, we don't want them to be
society's problem," said Prop. 5 backer Daniel Macallair, who directs
the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco.

Many law enforcement officials are fighting Prop. 5, saying it would
make treatment programs ripe for abuse and increase crime by freeing
dangerous offenders.

"It's a disaster," said Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff.
"It simply has too many escape valves and judges have so little
ability to work with (convicts)." Legalizing drugs?

Orloff said the measure would be a "giant step toward legalization"
of drugs because of the lax way it would treat offenders and because
it would make possession of small amounts of marijuana an infraction,
like a traffic ticket, rather than a misdemeanor.

The measure comes eight years after voters passed Proposition 36,
which diverted tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders a year
to treatment.

A UCLA study of Prop. 36, completed last year for the state, found
that just one-third of offenders referred to treatment completed it.
But largely because of lower incarceration costs, Prop. 36 saved
taxpayers $2.50 for every $1 invested, the study concluded.

Offenders who completed treatment were less likely to be arrested
again. However, arrest rates among all offenders who fit Prop. 36's
requirements went up after the program started in 2001 because
offenders "spent more time in the community," the study said.

Spending Boost

Prop. 6, the other measure, would require the state to spend at least
$965 million a year on programs for police and probation departments,
prosecutors, jails and juvenile lockups. That's a $365 million
increase from current spending, a figure likely to rise to $500
million within a few years, the legislative analyst said.

Penalties would increase for some crimes, particularly offenses that
are gang-related. Civil injunctions restricting the movement of
alleged gang members - like those that San Francisco City Attorney
Dennis Herrera has pursued in recent years - would become easier to obtain.

"It's a response to the growing gang problem, which is affecting all
parts of California," said Prop. 6 supporter Scott Thorpe, who leads
the California District Attorneys Association.

Macallair said Prop. 6 would worsen the crisis in prisons and noted
that law enforcement contractors had donated to the Prop. 6 campaign,
including Corrections Corporation of America, which builds and manages prisons.

Records show that the campaign also received donations from law
enforcement officials and groups representing police and prison
workers. Its biggest contributor, at $1 million, is Broadcom Corp.
co-founder and victim-rights champion Henry Nicholas III, who was
indicted in June on charges that he distributed drugs and inflated
the value of his technology firm's stock options.

The biggest backer of Prop. 5 - with a donation of $1 million,
records show - is George Soros, a billionaire financier who has
fought to decriminalize some drug use, including medical marijuana.
He has said that he does not favor full legalization of all drugs.

Victims' Rights Measure

A third anti-crime measure on the Nov. 4 ballot, Proposition 9, is
being pushed by victims. Among other changes, "Marsy's Law" would
allow victims to speak at pretrial bail hearings and limit a
defendant's ability to gain evidence from a victim before trial.
Opponents said current law protects victims.

The measure would limit the release of inmates due to prison and jail
crowding. That could cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the
legislative analyst said.

Prop. 9 backers were dealt a setback when Nicholas was indicted. He
had given the campaign nearly $5 million, and the proposed law is
named for his murdered sister.

[sidebar]

ANTI-CRIME MEASURES

Proposition 5

. What it is: An expansion of treatment programs for some people
convicted of drug-related and nonviolent crimes, many of whom would
be diverted from prison.

. How much it will cost: New programs could cost more than $1 billion
per year, but a similar amount could be saved in incarceration costs.
In addition, more than $2.5 billion slated for prison construction
could be saved.

. Arguments for it: Supporters say drug-related and nonviolent
offenders should get treatment and rehabilitation rather than cycling
in and out of overcrowded prisons.

. Arguments against: Critics say the measure is a step toward
legalization of drugs and would increase crime by freeing dangerous
offenders and reducing their parole terms.

Proposition 6

. What it is: Sets aside money for police agencies, prosecutors,
probation officers, jails and juvenile justice facilities and
increases penalties for some street crimes, particularly gang-related offenses.

. How much it will cost: Requires spending of at least $965 million a
year, a $365 million increase from current levels. The extra total is
likely to rise to $500 million within a few years.

. Arguments for it: Supporters say the measure will put more police
on the street and will pay for other programs to deal with a growing
gang problem in the state.

. Arguments against: Critics say the initiative gives money to law
enforcement that should be spent on more pressing needs and contains
little oversight.

Proposition 9

. What it is: Gives victims more input in court cases and more
ability to collect restitution. Offenders get fewer parole hearings
and less ability to compel evidence from victims.

. How much it will cost: Potentially, hundreds of millions of dollars
a year by limiting the early release of inmates because of prison overcrowding.

. Arguments for it: Supporters say crime victims need more protection
and a bigger role in prosecuting offenders.

. Arguments against: Critics say the measure is costly and duplicates
some existing victim-rights laws.

Source: Initiative campaigns, Legislative Analyst's Office