Non-Violent Drug offenders -Porp. 36

Have you heard the phrase "prisons are over populated!"? Statistics show 21.2% of low level drug offenders, that are incarcerated, do not have any current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment. (USDOJ) Could this be the problem of prisons being over populated? There are many factors that need to be considered when looking for other possible methods of dealing with non-violent drug offenders. Some lawmakers believe the only way to deal with these offenders is to lock them up for long periods of time, while other feel the solution lies within treatment facilities and expanded social programs. With both sides having valid points we must then evaluate what is the cost of correcting this problem is and if fixing these non-violent offenders are worth it.

A plan that would help in the over population of the prisons is to have the non-violent drug offenders sent to treatment instead of prison, to have them spend time in halfway homes, and be monitored by probation officers. A plan called Proposition 36. This plan was passed by 61% of California voters in November 2000. This initiative allows people convicted of 1st and 2nd time nonviolent, simple drug possession to receive drug treatment instead of incarceration. (California Campaign for New Drug Policies) This way, prisons are not becoming over populated and the addiction is being treated. Costs of keeping offenders in prison are higher then what are the costs for an offender to receive treatment. Many addicts are serving time and not having there addiction treated. There are about 1.2 million individuals in state prisons; approximately 125,000 prisoners are nonviolent drug offenders. (Center for Policy Alternatives) Why are there so many non-violent drug offenders in prison? It is due primarily to mandatory sentences for drug offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences for first-time offenders range from five years for simple possession of "crack" cocaine to 20 years for distribution of any narcotic. (U.S. Sentencing Commission)

There are many benefits to having drug offenders in treatment. It would be teaching them of their addiction and how to deal with it. Offenders who receive treatment are less likely to continue using drugs or to commit crimes. Providing treatment for substance abuse is effective and saves billions of taxpayer dollars. It also cuts down drug use in half, decreases unemployment and homelessness, reduces unlawful activity, and reduces high-risk sexual activities.

There is the notion that addicts will not be "cured" from treatment and that they will still use drugs. This is so, but, there are some addicts that will benefit from the treatment and become drug free. That means there will be past offenders less likely using and distributing drugs, which will lower the crime rate and the costs of keeping them in prison. There is also the thought that if they are not punished by being sentenced to prison that they have not received consequences for their actions. With the plan of Proposition 36 addicts would still be held responsible from there actions, they would have to attend treatment and be monitored by a probation officer. It would not be like a free ride.

Opponents are opposed with Proposition 36 because of several reasons. Opponents believe that this program replaces judicial discretion with a mandatory and rigid system that is dangerous because it practically decriminalizes all drug use. (League of Women Voters of California Education) With the opposed plan, it will reduce the ability of drug court judges to order short jail sentences for defendants who regress in treatment programs, will cripple the effective form of drug treatment and will remove all incentives for addicts to recover. With the new plan the parole system would be threatened. Law enforcement would have to wait for addicted parolee to actually commit a violent or serious crime before returning that person to jail or prison.

Opponents are upset about the provision of the initiative that prohibits spending any of the measures annual $120 million annual treatment budget on drug testing, a critical component of the local drug courts. (Friends Committee on Legislation) Testing is vital because it holds drug abusers accountable. There is no way to conclude if the treatment is actually working without testing. Many prosecutors, prison guards, narcotics officers and judges who oppose this plan believe that the threat of jail is a necessary tool in getting addicts to kick the habit. They say the state's current drug court system is a more practical solution to drug-related crime.

Some that oppose this Prop 36 is because they feel that it is not about treatment, it's about trying to legalize hard drugs. "My heart breaks for people addicted to drugs and for their families. Clearly, we need to do everything possible to help drug abusers recover from their addictions and get on with their lives. But Proposition 36 isn't the answer."(Martin Sheen is spokesperson for Californians United against Drug Abuse.)

My personally opinion is that yes, our prisons are over populated and that some of the punishments that have been handed down to non-violent drug offenders have been too tough and are not always in the best interest of the offender(s). I feel that non-violent drug offenders should go to halfway homes, treatment and other options instead of prison as long as they do not have other offenses with the drug offense. There is such a wide inconsistency in sentencing to this day. Before the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences in serious drug cases, federal judges were able to use their own discretion to impose whatever sentences that they felt appropriate, in their personal view, up to the statutory maximum. Each individual judge differs in their personal views about crime and sentencing, the sentences they imposed for similar offenses by similar defendants varied widely. (War on Drugs) Even with mandatory sentencing there are offenders that are sentenced in prison for way more time then they should have. There are offenders that would benefit more if they were allowed to stay within their community and get the treatment and resources that they need to live a productive life. These offenders would then have the chance to be in their children's lives and hopefully work to make sure that their children do not follow in their steps. What about non-violent offenders learning new "tricks"