Proposition 36
The Real Truth
As you might already be aware there is a ballot initiative on this upcoming November’s election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug offenders. If Proposition 36 passes, California could become number one for its treatment for drug offenders. The measure also provides state funds to counties to operate the drug treatment programs. Additionally, studies have shown that drug treatment is a far more effective than prison in reducing future criminal activity. Robert Roseman, a 51-year-old heroin addict from Sacramento says, “I was always able to get drugs in prison…all you’re going to learn in prison is to do crime better.”
Stephen V. Manley, President of Drug Court Professionals says that,
“Proposition 36 doesn’t provide “court-supervised” drug treatment. It ties the hands of judges, hurts legitimate treatment and effectively decriminalizes heroin, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. Drug courts hold drug abusers accountable with regular drug testing and consequences for failing treatment— accountability not found in Proposition 36.”
Drug testing is a part of court-supervised drug treatment everywhere in California today, and it will continue to be under Proposition 36. There are no legal barriers to drug testing. Judges can and will order appropriate levels of testing of offenders placed in treatment under the initiative's system; Proposition 36 simply does not tie judges' hands by prescribing a one-size-fits-all regimen for all offenders. A positive drug test can be treated as a violation of probation. Judges can also require individual offenders to pay for their own drug testing, as they do now in the "drug court" system, if they can afford it. (The cost of a test can be $4 to $7 per test.) The fact is tens of millions of dollars in state and federal funds already go to drug testing of criminal offenders through the court system and probation system. If more money is needed, this can easily be appropriated from the hundreds of millions of dollars saved each year by this initiative. Proposition 36 merely requires that its monetary appropriation for treatment programs must go to providing treatment services, where the need is so great.
Within our society, there is a gleaming stigma against the drug addicted. We have been taught to believe that if someone uses drugs and commits a crime they should be locked away and shunned for their lifetime. Their past continues to haunt them, even if they have changed their old addictive ways. Everyone deserves a second chance at life, so why do we outcast someone who struggles with this horrible disease? Drug addiction and crime can destroy lives and rip apart families. Drug courts give individuals an opportunity to repair the wreckage of their past and mend what was once lost. Throughout this paper, I will demonstrate why drug courts are more beneficial to an addict than lengthy prison sentences.
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era (“A Brief History,” 2014). The common belief was that stiff penalties discouraged people from using drugs and enhanced public safety (“A Brief History,” 2014). That theory, however, was proven false and rather than less illegal drug activity, there are simply more people incarcerated. Studies show that over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on drug charges, a 116 percent percentage rise since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale use of imprisonment on
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
Implications of implementing this approach may be “to reduce the dangers of drug use for the community and the individual, and to shift the focus of illegal drugs as primarily a criminal justice of medical issue to a social and/or public health iss...
Drug court programs are able to bring many interveners (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officers, law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others) to the forefront for the offender leading them to having to deal with his or her substance abuse problem. The studies have found that drug courts offer closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision and that “drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug
Currently there are 80,000 drug offenders in federal prison, making up a little over 60 percent of the prisons’ population (Stewart 113-114). 94 percent of the drug offenders were sentenced under one of the four mandatory minimum statutes passed by Congress between 1984 and 1990 in an attempt to reduce drug use in the United States. Even further, it was in 1998 that “57 percent of drug defendants entering federal prison were first offenders, and 88 percent of them had no weapons.” On average, these 80,000 prisoners are sentenced to approximately 6 and ½ years in prison (Stewart 113-114). And it is due to the prohibition of mitigating circumstances that leads to these situations. The United States’ prisons are overcrowded. New York Times reported that despite the United States only is home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the country provides approximately one quarter of the world’s prisoners (Liptak). Yet some will insist that Todd must have been guilty in someway or another, or maybe he was simply an innocent who fell through the inevitable cracks in the system. On the contrary, that is the exact problem with mandatory sentencing, it’s setup allows people to not only slip through cracks, but to land face first and watch their life
The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives
The purpose of this paper is to inform about effect the drug treatment programs in prison are and who they affect the most. The programs are meant to for re-offenders with an extensive drug record. Some of the questions the researchers asked was how well do the programs work for the inmates, who does it effect, and does different drugs affect the programs. In 2002 there was 250 prison based drug treatment programs in 40 states. In 2004 the number went up to 290 treatment programs in 44 states. (Farebee et al. 1999) The main focus of the programs are to help inmates so they do not reoffend once released from prison. Drug treatment programs help the different inmates by using different programs.
The first step in ending the issue of drug use and abuse in our country is to cure the drug users from their addiction in a safe, controlled manner. As confirmed in an article from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by compulsive, or uncontrollable, drug seeking and use despite harmful consequences and changes in the brain, which can be long lasting.” (“Treatment Approaches for Drug Addiction”) The addiction of drugs is an actual disease, and cannot be brushed off as something that can be stopped at any point in time. Drug addiction is just as serious as any other diagnosed disease and must be cured accordingly. Prison will not benefit those addicted to drugs because it is a disease that must be treated, just as any other illness is. In an attempt to end an addiction without help in a safe environment, dangerous consequences could result.
California Proposition 36 (Prop 36) is most commonly known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000, which according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office is, “an initiative statute that permanently changed state law to allow qualifying defendants convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses to receive a probationary sentence in lieu of incarceration.” According to the UCLA evaluation report of the SACPA 2008- 2010 fiscal year, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act covered a classification of 3 types of offenders, the first being those with new convictions for drug possession or being under the influence or drugs, the second being persons on parole for being under the influence drugs or for drug possession,
The harsh punishment for drug crimes in the United States of America is not working. “With roughly half a million people behind bars in the U.S. for nonviolent drug offenses, drugs are as plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier, 2013). Even with very harsh long sentences and many people imprisoned drug use is as common as ever in America. ‘We cannot close our eyes anymore’ to the cost in human lives destroyed and taxpayer dollars wasted” (Holcomb, 2015). Harsh drug penalties are destroying American citizens lives and is costing a lot of money from taxpayers. “Yet, people who want treatment can often expect to endure an obstacle course just to get help” (Grenier, 2013). The Unites States government is spending a large amount of money on arresting and imprisoning drug users, yet are putting little to no focus on funding drug medical help for
In conclusion, it has been shown that drug courts are beneficial to both drug addicts and to our society. Too many addicts and their family’s drug court represent the foundation of a new, healthy, and productive life. Drug courts benefit the community by providing structure to non-violent drug offenders and a chance to rebuild their lives. Although there are arguments against the value or effectiveness of drug courts, the benefits that they provide are undeniable, and as the system uses drug court the benefits will only increase for everyone involved.
Gray, Judge James P. Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About
In his article, “We can’t afford to ignore drug addiction in prison,” David Sack states, “Addiction is a chronic illness that needs long term care… Prison just buys a little time before the addict relapses and re-offends, perpetuating the cycle and hurting himself along with the rest of us. It’s a good incentive to look beyond incarceration for solutions to society’s ills…Let’s…make a real commitment to seeing how much we can accomplish with effective addiction treatment.” Sack establishes that addiction is a medical condition that causes addicts to be more likely to recidivate. People should be welcoming ex-prisoners as returning members of society instead of ignoring them, allowing them to commit another crime, and be reincarcerated- only to repeat the cycle. Sack proposes the simple solution of actively supporting prison treatments for addicts. RDAP is the perfect program to be supported, because it provides the necessary treatment to prevent prisoners from relapsing once they are released. By supporting RDAP, the recidivism rate lowers as inmates are given the opportunity to return as citizens who are healthy and able to contribute to
There is an epidemic of almost epic proportions in this wonderful nation called the United States. However, this epidemic is not only national; it is worldwide. And because of this epidemic there are other problems in society such as an increase in crime and prison overcrowding. The epidemic is that of Substance Abuse and Addiction. The penal systems of each state house more prisoners due to drug related crimes than any other. The statistics do not lie; they only tell the truth. Treatment instead of incarceration would be beneficial to the addict himself and to society as a whole. Evidence shows treatment would lower the amount of criminal activity due to substance abuse and addiction. Logic shows that if a problem is cured then the consequences of the problem disappear. There are different points of view on the subject of treatment or incarceration for those criminals who are substance abusers. And there are valid points in either argument.