Pubdate: Wed, 22 Nov 2000
Source: San Luis Obispo County Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Tribune
Contact:  P.O. Box 112, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0112
Fax: 805.781.7905
Website: http://www.thetribunenews.com/
Author: Leila W. Knox, The Tribune
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

OFFICIALS LAMENT PASSAGE OF PROP. 36

Judges, Prosecutors Say They'll Have Less Latitude

Law enforcement officials spoke out against it, newspaper editorials 
statewide voiced strong opposition to it, and even a television actor who 
plays the role of the American president warned of its perceived dangers.

But not even actor Martin Sheen's pleas to reject Proposition 36 - the 
measure that will send many nonviolent drug offenders to treatment rather 
than prison - could dissuade the majority of California voters from 
approving the legislation. A full 61 percent voted in favor of the measure 
in the Nov. 7 election.

In San Luis Obispo County, 58 percent of the voters supported Proposition 
36. Now judges and district attorneys both here and statewide are taking a 
long look at the proposition and optimistically saying they will find ways 
to make it work.

"In some ways I'm disappointed," said San Luis Obispo County Judge 
Christopher Money, "but I'm pleased to see that there will be a lot more 
funds available for treatment programs."

The proposition earmarks $120 million a year for five years for drug 
treatment, counseling and vocational training for offenders. The funding 
will allow for about $4,000 per patient for treatment. Currently costs for 
incarceration are about $21,000 a year.

Supporters of the law, including San Luis Obispo criminal defense attorney 
Ilan Funke-Bilu, say the legislation is an important step in rehabilitating 
drug offenders.

"It simply rearranges the focus of our criminal justice system," Funke-Bilu 
said. "It tells us that the people finally recognize that a good percentage 
of criminals out there are really people who need treatment and help more 
than they need incarceration, and in the long run it's cheaper for the 
taxpayer to treat the people than throw them in the pokey and throw the key 
away."

But the proposition's opponents question whether drug treatment will save 
taxpayers the $150 million annually that it promises. For one thing, 
critics note, there is no funding for drug testing in the measure. They 
worry that the amount of money designated for drug programs will not be enough.

Judges and prosecutors also say that the proposition gives them less 
latitude in charging and sentencing offenders. Under the current system, a 
person who is caught with a small amount of an illicit drug - like 
methamphetamine - can be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Those who are charged with a misdemeanor - generally first-time offenders - 
are given lighter punishment. That could include requiring them to attend a 
Narcotics Anonymous-type of meeting, which costs taxpayers little to nothing.

Under the new law, misdemeanor and felony offenders will be treated the 
same in that both will be eligible for drug rehabilitation.

Money said the legislation takes away the court's ability to send drug 
offenders to prison for a few days to "dry out" before they are dealt with 
in the system.

"I think addiction is very, very difficult for people to overcome," he 
said, "and when they limit the alternatives a judge has in requiring a 
person who is addicted to overcome their addiction, it hurts."

He also is concerned about the fate of drug court in the county. In 
September, nine people graduated from drug court, which was started two 
years ago in San Luis Obispo. The program combines treatment, weekly 
meetings with a judge, and regular visits from a probation officer.

Drug court succeeded because of the accountability - in the form of drug 
testing and weekly meetings with the judge - that is built into the 
program, supporters said. They worry that offenders will not choose to plea 
and enter drug court, but instead will go to trial, be convicted and go 
into rehabilitation.

"It's sad because drug court was succeeding," said Deputy District Attorney 
Lee Cunningham. "It was the only thing that had hope. The drug addicts are 
the ones that are going to be hurt. There is accountability with drug 
court, but there's none with Proposition 36."

But with the prison population in California swelling despite a drop in 
crime across the country, and one of every three prisoners in state 
penitentiaries serving time for a drug-related crime, Proposition 36 
supporters say that the voters were clearly voicing their opinion that 
something needs to be done to help offenders.

"It's society looking at this saying we have to do something," said 
criminal defense attorney Paul Phillips. "Is it the cure all? No. Is it a 
step in the right direction? Maybe so. Those powers that be decided maybe 
we need to do a little rehab here."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D