Posted on: Thursday, June 13, 2002
Island Voices
Treatment? Only sometimes
Raymond Gagner lives in Kailua.
The recent debate over Hawai'i's new law to provide a treatment alternative to prison for nonviolent drug offenders, and Prosecutor Peter Carlisle's assertion that only six of the 3,920 inmates in Hawai'i's prisons would be appropriate for such a program, indicate some confusion about the relationships among drugs, crime and incarceration.
Perhaps a look at the numbers can clear things up. The following information from the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs) highlights some of the latest and most detailed information on drugs, crime and the prison population. Let's begin with the good news. Our prisons may be bulging at the seams, but they are not filled to overflowing with hapless souls who got caught smoking pot on their back porch. At the end of the 1990s, over 91 percent of inmates in America's state prisons were either violent criminals or repeat offenders. We are locking up more dangerous people and career criminals, and our communities are safer for it.
About 11 percent of state prisoners in 1997 were drug traffickers, and less than 9 percent were behind bars for drug possession. The state prison population grew rapidly in the 1990s, but not because of drug offenders.
Violent criminals accounted for 51 percent of the growth in state prisoners in the '90s while drug offenders made up only a fifth of population growth.
There are three distinct groups of people who are in prison because of drugs: 1) persons convicted of drug possession, 2) drug traffickers and 3) persons with a drug or alcohol problem who have been convicted of non-drug offenses. A rational corrections policy must balance the needs of justice and the possibilities for rehabilitation for each of these classes of offender. Ê
In 1997, only 8.9 percent of state prison inmates were serving time for drug possession.ÊSome were sentenced under state laws mandating prison time for hard drug possession. (Hawai'i has such a mandatory statute for possession of methamphetamine.)
Others were parole violators. Still others were drug traffickers who plea-bargained their offense down to possession. Some of these prisoners are drug- or alcohol-addicted and would benefit from treatment. Some would not. Some undoubtedly would be better off in community correctional settings. Others are career criminals who deserve to be in prison.
A good case can be made for rethinking rigid mandatory sentencing rules that deny courts and correction officials the flexibility to manage these prisoners.
About 12 percent of state prisoners in 1997 were charged with drug trafficking. Like prisoners charged with possession, traffickers are technically "nonviolent offenders." Should they receive treatment rather than punishment? Whether they are small-time street dealers or international smugglers, all traffickers are part of an evil industry that wrecks lives, corrupts communities and runs on blood.
Some traffickers are drug-dependent and could benefit from treatment. Some are not. All are guilty of a serious crime, and we should not lightly let them go unpunished.
Should we divert drug- and alcohol-using felons from prison to treatment? There is no simple answer. Drug or alcohol use, even regular or heavy use, does not automatically constitute dependence, and a diagnosis of addiction does not necessarily mean that a person is ready to accept treatment.
Nor should drug or alcohol dependence automatically release a person from responsibility for his acts. Many criminals are alcoholics, but most alcoholics are not criminals.
We should certainly increase treatment resources in prison and expand community alternatives for those felons whose offense and treatment needs warrant it. We should not, as some propose, simply open the prison door for every felon with a drug or alcohol problem.
