JAIL TIME SOUGHT FOR DRUG OFFENSES

Legislature Considers Rolling Back Prop. 36's Sentencing Guidelines
for Nonviolent Users.

SACRAMENTO - In 2000, California voters approved a drug-treatment
initiative that was set to become, in the words of one legal
newsletter, "the most significant piece of sentencing reform anywhere
in the country since the end of Prohibition."

Known as Proposition 36, the initiative mandated treatment and
probation instead of jail time for nonviolent drug offenders. Voters
approved it with 61 percent of the vote in Orange County and statewide.

But despite its popularity with voters, the Legislature in coming
days could vote to alter the law dramatically.

Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, has proposed a bill as part of the
state budget package that would permit judges to incarcerate
offenders who violate their probation by using or possessing drugs
again. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has indicated he would withhold
funding for Prop. 36 if reforms aren't made now.

The proposed sentences would be short - up to two days for the first
violation, up to five days for the second - but the Drug Policy
Alliance, the original sponsor of Prop. 36, contends the change runs
counter to the initiative's intent.

"What they're doing might be legal, but it's not right," said Prop.
36 supporter the Rev. Gary Collins of St. Mark Presbyterian Church in
Newport Beach and the Progressive Christians Uniting Orange County
chapter. "I think if you want to help drug users, treatment without
incarcerations would be more helpful."

Ducheny's proposal comes at the behest of a justice community that
opposed Prop. 36 in 2000 as soft on crime, and remains critical of
the policy. Law enforcement officials say treatment completion rates
aren't high enough. Judges complain they don't have leverage to make
offenders attend treatment.

"People need to know there's accountability. I think people need to
know they're responsible for their actions," said Orange County
Superior Court Judge Erick Larsh, who is critical of Prop. 36, though
he thinks it can help offenders.

Backers of Prop. 36 say the governor's threat of withholding funds is
an empty one. By law, courts have to sentence nonviolent offenders to
drug treatment. If there's no money for treatment, there are no
consequences. That means without funding for Prop. 36, drugs
effectively would be decriminalized in California, they say.

"That would be an interesting re-election tactic," said Margaret
Dooley, Prop. 36 outreach coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance.

As part of the budget package, Ducheny's proposal, SB 1137, would be
voted on immediately after the Legislature approves the budget for
the coming year, as early as this week. Unlike most proposed
legislation, budget bills are typically approved without committee debates.

Ducheny, however, says her proposal has been fully vetted in public
because it is virtually identical to another bill she's carrying, SB
803, which has been through several committee hearings.

The Drug Policy Alliance counters that using a so-called budget
"trailer bill" is a stealthy way to get the proposal into law.

"Trailer bills are usually approved. I'm sure that's the plan," Dooley said.

Under current law, nonviolent drug users in treatment who violate
probation once or twice by using drugs don't face jail time. Instead,
the typical response is increased treatment. Ducheny's bill would
allow brief sentences, or "flash incarcerations," as punishment for
violations. Critics don't think jail works.

"I think that jail is a great sanction and a good attention-getter
but it reminds me of the mother at Kmart whose child is crying and
she keeps spanking his bottom and telling him to stop crying. It
doesn't make sense," said Nancy Clark of the Nancy Clark Recovery
Center in Newport Beach.

A UCLA study released in April found that 34 percent of offenders who
enter Prop. 36 treatment each year complete it.

"Prop. 36 has been a tremendous failure," said John Lovell, a
lobbyist for six law enforcement organizations that support the
proposed changes.

Supporters of Prop. 36 point to another statistic in the UCLA study:
$2.50 was saved for every $1 spent on Prop. 36. The savings come
primarily from reducing incarceration costs.

Legal advisers to the Legislature told Ducheny and other lawmakers in
April 2005 that jailing offenders under Prop. 36 is such a drastic
change of a voter-approved initiative that it would require voter
approval. Ducheny disagrees, but has included in the bill an unusual
provision that says if a court rules it is unconstitutional, the
issue will automatically go before voters for another vote.

"It's unconstitutional and they know it," Dooley said.

Some believe the proposed reforms don't go far enough. Assemblyman
Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said Ducheny's bill should include harsher
regulations for repeat offenders. He and Assembly Republicans have
asked the governor to push for more reforms.

A two-thirds majority of the Legislature is required to amend Prop. 36