News (Media Awareness Project) - US OH: LTE: Opposes Issue 1 |
Title: | US OH: LTE: Opposes Issue 1 |
Published On: | 2002-10-28 |
Source: | Press, The (OH) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-21 21:09:39 |
Opposes Issue 1
To the editor:
As a municipal court judge and a member of the Ohio Sentencing Commission,
I am writing to express my opposition to Issue 1, which is going to be on
the ballot in November and which is contrary to the effective
administration of justice.
Sponsors of Issue 1 indicate that they seek rehabilitation instead of
incarceration for low-level drug offenders. But this reference is deceptive
because.
Ohio law already authorizes judges to sentence first- and second-time drug
offenders to treatment instead of prison.
Judges currently send almost all first- and second-time offenders to
treatment (see research conducted by Ohio Judicial Conference, which can be
found at www.state.oh.us/ojc)
Ohio's judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have all announced
opposition to Issue 1. We feel current law is the right approach and Issue
One would not ensure effective treatment, would eliminate offender
accountability to the courts, and would prevent judges from using their
discretion to protect public safety.
Here are some specifics:
1. Issue 1 would prohibit treatment providers from sharing information
about whether a client is beating the drug test and actually using. Judges
need this information to assure accountability of drug offenders and to
assure that treatment efforts are working.
2. It would prevent a judge from giving a sanction (like one to three days
in jail) for violating conditions of a treatment program until the third
violation. Offenders currently tell us that these sanctions are a crucial
wake-up call that gets them back into treatment and makes them stick with
the treatment program long enough to overcome their addiction.
3. It would enable an offender to not show up for treatment, etc., and
receive a maximum of 90 days in jail rather than take treatment seriously.
The 90 days is a much shorter time period than the 12-18 months that an
offender would face under current law. Current law is a much more
substantial threat, and thus it provides more incentive for the offender to
stick with treatment.
4. It would give offenders a "get out of jail free" card, which would be
good for two arrests and perpetually renewable every five years. Under the
definitions of Issue One, everyone, regardless of the number or severity of
previous drug offenses, would be considered a first-or second-time offender.
Frederick C. Hany II
Judge, Ottawa County Municipal Court
To the editor:
As a municipal court judge and a member of the Ohio Sentencing Commission,
I am writing to express my opposition to Issue 1, which is going to be on
the ballot in November and which is contrary to the effective
administration of justice.
Sponsors of Issue 1 indicate that they seek rehabilitation instead of
incarceration for low-level drug offenders. But this reference is deceptive
because.
Ohio law already authorizes judges to sentence first- and second-time drug
offenders to treatment instead of prison.
Judges currently send almost all first- and second-time offenders to
treatment (see research conducted by Ohio Judicial Conference, which can be
found at www.state.oh.us/ojc)
Ohio's judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have all announced
opposition to Issue 1. We feel current law is the right approach and Issue
One would not ensure effective treatment, would eliminate offender
accountability to the courts, and would prevent judges from using their
discretion to protect public safety.
Here are some specifics:
1. Issue 1 would prohibit treatment providers from sharing information
about whether a client is beating the drug test and actually using. Judges
need this information to assure accountability of drug offenders and to
assure that treatment efforts are working.
2. It would prevent a judge from giving a sanction (like one to three days
in jail) for violating conditions of a treatment program until the third
violation. Offenders currently tell us that these sanctions are a crucial
wake-up call that gets them back into treatment and makes them stick with
the treatment program long enough to overcome their addiction.
3. It would enable an offender to not show up for treatment, etc., and
receive a maximum of 90 days in jail rather than take treatment seriously.
The 90 days is a much shorter time period than the 12-18 months that an
offender would face under current law. Current law is a much more
substantial threat, and thus it provides more incentive for the offender to
stick with treatment.
4. It would give offenders a "get out of jail free" card, which would be
good for two arrests and perpetually renewable every five years. Under the
definitions of Issue One, everyone, regardless of the number or severity of
previous drug offenses, would be considered a first-or second-time offender.
Frederick C. Hany II
Judge, Ottawa County Municipal Court
Member Comments |
No member comments available...