The Chronicle Recommends:

NO ON PROP. 5

A Risky Drug Plan

Eight years ago, Californians approved Proposition 36, which was
designed to send drug offenders into treatment instead of prison.

Proposition 5, on the Nov. 4 ballot, would take this concept a step
further. Many prosecutors and judges who deal with drug-related crime
make a compelling case that this measure goes too far - and would
work against its stated goal of reducing crime through treatment programs.

The measure would allocate $460 million to improve and expand
treatment programs for Californians convicted of drug offenses or
nonviolent crimes that may be related to an addiction.

One of the biggest criticisms of Prop. 5 is that it opens to door to
allowing someone convicted of a long list of nonviolent crimes -
burglary, embezzlement, arson, auto theft - to blame their addiction
as a way to avoid prison. This claim is not entirely fair. In
reality, a judge would have to approve the treatment option. The more
likely application of this provision would be on serial petty thieves
who keep cycling through the justice system because of small-time
crimes to feed a habit.

However, there are many other disturbing flaws with Prop. 5. For
example, none of this new money could be used for drug testing - one
of the most critical components of a drug-treatment program. Judges
also would lose one of their most valuable tools in confronting an
addict who was balking at going into treatment: the threat of a short
jail stint. Under Prop. 5, jail sanctions could be imposed only after
multiple failures and multiple hearings.

Another of the highly criticized aspect of Prop. 5 is the narrowing
of the parole period for drug offenders from the current three years
to as little as six months. As San Mateo County District Attorney Jim
Fox noted, the scrutiny of parole - with parolees subject to search
and seizure at any moment - helps deter newly released drug dealers
from getting back in the business.

The supporters of Prop. 5 argue that it makes no sense to send drug
addicts to our overcrowded prisons when treatment is available. We
agree in concept. But this measure puts far too much faith in
treatment. A UCLA study of Prop. 36 showed that more than a quarter
of the offenders failed to show up for rehab - and nearly half of
those who did failed to complete their programs.

The formula in Proposition 5 would make a good pilot program in one
or two counties to see how it would work. It's important to note that
many of the judges and prosecutors who deal with these types of cases
every day are convinced of its flaws. To bring it statewide would
represent an unacceptable risk.

Voters should reject Prop. 5.