Pubdate: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 Source: Times Argus (Barre, VT) Copyright: 2007 Times Argus Contact: http://www.timesargus.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/893 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) BUSTED Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand may catch some heat for sending a Windsor lawyer and part-time judge to court diversion rather than facing a felony marijuana charge. But the case is a good example of the useful and constructive purposes that diversion programs serve. Martha Davis is a 61-year-old lawyer who sometimes serves as an acting judge in Windsor County Family Court. Her entanglement with the law began when she notified the Fish and Wildlife office that there was a dead deer on her property. Fish and Wildlife personnel found deer guts, but not the deer, and they found something else - marijuana growing on Davis's property. Subsequently, authorities found 32 marijuana plants inside her house. Diversion is a program that allows offenders in some cases to avoid the legal process and the corrections system and to keep their records free of a criminal conviction. Offenders are not allowed off the hook. They must sit down with a board of community members, and they must own up to their offenses. They must pay restitution for damages, and they must perform community service. Most first-time drug offenders end up in a diversion program. Parents of teenagers who have been caught with beer may be familiar with diversion. The crimes are not always victimless, which is why restitution is sometimes required. But often they involve alcohol or marijuana, and sometimes offenders must complete alcohol or drug counseling to fulfill their diversion obligations. If offenders fail to live up to their side of the bargain, they are still subject to criminal prosecution. Successful completion of a diversion program makes winners of everyone. Court calendars are relieved of numerous cases, and jails are not crowded with nonviolent offenders. That's one way the state wins. Offenders win because they avoid legal proceedings and a conviction. Both state and offender win because offenders must take responsibility for their actions and must pay by means of community service. Sand is well-known as an advocate for decriminalization of drug offenses. Here is a case that shows the logic of his position. No one would be served by throwing Martha Davis into jail, should she be convicted. There was no evidence that she was selling marijuana. Sand acknowledged that she had a significant amount in her possession. If that was a sign of abuse, then the diversion program is meant to provide the assistance she would need to address her problem. Throughout the nation jails are bursting with people who have done little more than what Davis is alleged to have done, and it doesn't make sense. Those who demand a tough punitive approach to any and every drug offense have created a system where penalties are out of proportion to offenses. And then they toast their success by putting on a buzz from a celebratory glass of wine. No one wants to see the state's drug problem get worse, but addressing the drug problem sensibly requires a focus on actual dangers. A 61-year-old with marijuana at her house may be endangering her own clear-headedness, just as a 31-year-old who downs too many brews. Law enforcement needs to devote its anti-drug efforts at real threats and let diversion teach the likes of Martha Davis her lesson. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake