Posted on: Tuesday, May 14, 2002
EDITORIAL
New drug sentence law worth it, despite flaw
Although it has generated controversy, a proposed new law that offers alternatives to prison for first-time drug offenders is an important step forward in rationalizing how we deal with these cases.
If nothing else, the new law highlights the pressing need for a greater number and variety of treatment options. Today, there is little money available for treatment and a woefully small number of facilities capable of handling treatment of criminal offenders.
City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle and former Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro say the law may have major loopholes that will lead to undesirable, unintended consequences.
The new law would require that first-time nonviolent offenders be put on probation and sent to treatment. A judge will have to decide if the person's history and criminal record suggest he or she is a "nonviolent" offender.
Under this law, Carlisle warns, a person with a lengthy criminal history — perhaps even a violent criminal history — could argue for probation if this was his first drug arrest. Similarly, drug dealers who are arrested as users might also find a way out.
Those are legitimate concerns, and if in application the law appears to be putting people on the streets who should be behind bars, it can be amended.
But as a practical matter, it will be up to a judge to decide whether to order treatment or a criminal trial and possible prison. There is no reason to assume judges will be unreasonable.
As the prosecutors note, judges today have the authority to divert first-time petty offenders and often do. This law simply makes that option a matter of public policy.
A more pressing concern, in our view, is the lack of adequate treatment facilities. Judges are more likely to refuse probation on those grounds.
In that context, it is promising that a coalition of state law enforcement and health officials has been formed to launch a five-year program to identify and fund the most promising alternatives to prison sentences.
Included in the "Interagency Council on Intermediate Sanctions" are representatives of the Judiciary, the Health Department, Public Safety and the attorney general.
Part of the work will be to develop a statistically valid profile of individuals most likely to benefit from redirection and treatment over prison.
It is indisputable that treatment is a more humane and far less expensive option than imprisonment. It is hardly a perfect cure-all, since even the best treatment in the world will not always succeed.
But since prison so rarely succeeds, there really is no other choice.
The task now is to make the diversion approach work, and work properly. And there is no reason why the work of the Interagency Council should take five years. This is critical work that has been far too long delayed.
