By
Dana Yates
Drug users who commit burglary, auto theft, domestic violence, child abuse and mortgage fraud could avoid jail and instead be diverted into rehabilitation programs if the state passes Proposition 5 this November.
It is why San Mateo County’s top brass are opposing the proposal despite claims from supporters that is will reduce jail population and increase funding to San Mateo County.
Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, seeks to allocate $460 million annually to improve and expand drug treatment programs. The proposal will increase drug rehabilitation funding in San Mateo County from $1.4 million to $6.7 million annually. It will also limit the court’s authority to jail people who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
Supporters claim the proposition will save the state million by safely reducing the number of people in prison and help non-violent drug uses by creating and improving rehabilitation programs. Those opposed to the proposition claim it frees criminals from being accountable for their actions and promotes the weakest parts of Proposition 36, a similar ballot initiative passed in 2000 and introduced by the same group.
“Proposition 5 gives drug users no hope, only more second chances that keeps the revolving door of drug use, and the crimes that go with it, going,” Foster City Police Chief Craig Courtin wrote in an open letter to the public last week. Courtin also serves as president of the San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Association.
The association is opposed to Proposition 5, claiming it continues what Proposition 36 started — the decriminalization of drugs.
Proposition 5 will require the state to increase funding and oversight for drug treatment programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. It reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating a three-tiered probation program with treatment. If passed, it will also limit the court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole and shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales and those involving nonviolent property crimes. It will also change certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions.
“Punishment alone largely fails to change nonviolent criminal behavior, particularly when such behavior is driven by addiction and lack of basic education and skills,” supporters wrote in the text of the proposition.
In creating additional oversight, the proposition calls for the creation of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to be headed by two secretaries known as the Secretary of Rehabilitation and Parole and the Secretary of Corrections. The governor will appoint both positions and have the power to appoint five undersecretaries and chief deputies, according to the proposition.
Under the proposal, nonviolent drug offenders will have 30 days from their sentencing to enter a drug treatment program. If they do not do so, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine why the offender did not begin the program. During periodic review hearings to evaluate a defendant’s progress, the court will consider using “incentives and rewards to encourage continued progress” and may impose graduated sanctions in response to problems reported by the treatment provider or probation department.
Those in the first level of drug treatment will not be placed in jail. If they complete the treatment program their criminal charges will be dismissed and permanently sealed.
The severity of punishment and likelihood of being incarcerated increases with more serious nonviolent drug related crimes.
Law enforcement officials claim the proposal will keep drug users on the street and more likely to commit other crimes such as robbery, burglary, fraud, assault and prostitution.
“Proposition 5 will exacerbate the on-going fiscal crisis for state and local governments and inevitably lead to cutbacks for existing vital services. This long and complicated initiative is wildly unrealistic in how it is written and will impose a massive new burden on local governments and local public safety services,” Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said in September. He is the president of the California Police Chiefs Association.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the District Attorney’s Association, the California State Association of Counties and three former governors are among those who oppose Proposition 5.
