Pubdate: Fri, 10 Oct 2008
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2008 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Alert: The State Ballot Propositions http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0385.html
Cited: Proposition 5 http://www.prop5yes.com
Cited: Proposition 36 http://www.prop36.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Proposition 36)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

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. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake