On this proposition, USC students Merdith Deane, Kristy Lucero, and Natasha Yasher all wrote smart explorations of the issue of drug rehab instead of incarceration for certain drug crimes. When they had concluded thier research, Meridith and Kristy decided that the proposition was a good idea in theory but too expensive and possibly poory executed. While Natasha thought it imperfect, but more benificial than not, but worried about the cost during the current economic downturn. So two recommended a NO vote, one recommend a qualified YES.
Here’s their reasoning:
MEREDITH DEANE
Proponents of Proposition 5, titled “Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2008,” say the measure will save California $2.5 billion by placing youth and non-violent offenders of drug-related crimes in rehabilitation programs instead of prison, but opponents like Senator Feinstein call it a drug dealer’s bill of rights, and would quickly put offenders like methamphetamine dealers back on the streets.
Both sides make salient points.
The proposition limits courts’ authority to incarcerate people who commit drug crimes, break drug treatment rules, or violate parole; shortens parole for certain drug offenses and increases parole for serious and violent crimes; allocates $460 million a year for drug treatment programs for convicts; separates the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation into two Secretaries; and creates a 29-member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy, according to the voter information guide.
Proponents—including the League of Women Voters of California, Consumer Federation of California, California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, and the California Federation of Teachers—focus on the economic benefits of the measure, which would cost the state around $1 billion a year, and say that it will safely reduce overcrowding in prisons, while enforcing accountability for treatment.
Opponents—including the Correctional Peace Officers Association, Drug Prevention Network of America, California Narcotic Officers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, and the California District Attorneys Association—say the measure would cost billions, and would let drug dealers, drunk drivers, child abusers, and identity thieves stay on the streets, decreasing parole for offenders like methamphetamine dealers from three years to six months.
Proponents seem to ignore the broad spectrum of health and safety codes that would be covered by the measure, which includes pages upon pages of various drugs. But opponents seem to ignore the importance of a measure that would limit overcrowding in prisons, which is already costly and from which correctional officers benefit.
The most imperative aspect for voters to consider is that the spending incurred cannot be curbed or adjusted by the Governor or Legislature, even in times of economic instability, when the money is not available.
My take on Prop 5:
While Prop 5 has good motives, including fixing the over-crowding in prisons and the over-incarceration of people who commit low-level, non-violent drug related violations, it feels as if the writers of the proposition didn’t have enough time to hash out the details. The result: the actualization of these motives is too broad, and needs more focus. The proposition includes too many drugs under its umbrella for it to be an effective drug-prevention measure, and is unlikely to lower crime rates because rehab is not effective unless the individual wants it to be.(My mother went to rehab for alcoholism several years ago, and a friend she made there was on her fourth attempt to kick a heroin addiction. This was the first time the 18-year-old wanted to get clean, but neither the state nor her parents were willing to pay for more than the “detox” process, and her honest attempt fruitlessly culminated. Rehab is a very complicated process to legislate, and Prop 5 falls short of the time and clinical support needed to create an effective measure to lower drug use and drug related crimes in California. Hopefully a more detailed version of Prop 5 can be created.)
**************************************************************************************************************
KRISTY LUCERO
Proposition 5 will make us lose money, and gain it. It will prevent crime, but put our children at risk. It will reduce prison overcrowding, but provide a way to avoid prosecution for criminals who commit more heinous crimes than drug offenses. These are some of the arguments surrounding Prop 5.
Proposition 5 develops a new drug treatment program for nonviolent offenders that could modify their parole and allow them to earn time off their prison sentence. The program operates on three tracks that expand services for drug offenders and increase the amount who are eligible for prison diversion.
In the long run, it could save taxpayers money by lowering jail time and deflecting people from prison. In theory, this would mean more room would be available for murderers, rapists, and serial killers.
In the next few years, Prop 5 would increase state costs for the development of the program. Its cost rises by millions of dollars annually through 2010, with additional yearly costs depending upon maintenance needs. This means that the price of the program could grow significantly over time.
Proponents of Prop 5 say drug rehabilitation programs save money spent on prison while providing addicts with ways to fix their problem. They cite Proposition 36 (which established a drug treatment program for offenders of nonviolent drug possession) as the building block of Prop 5 and say it will offer better treatment than its predecessor.
Opponents say Prop 5 gives drug users too many chances to avoid prosecution. They say it could protect drunk drivers from being prosecuted, even if their driving under the influence results in the death of others. They claim it is an “expensive sham designed to let criminals go free sooner, with less supervision.”
If Proposition 5 passes it will change the current parole system and could allow inmates to gain early dismissal by earning credits when completing the program. It would also lengthen the sentence of parolees who are convicted of violent felonies. Because it is written with the potential for such broad implementation, the effects of Prop 5 are hard to measure and will only be observable by time.
Based on my research, I have decided to vote against proposition 5. I believe that a drug rehabilitation system would help many inmates struggling with addiction and ultimately be very beneficial, but the three-track program seems costly and complicated, and shows little signs of success. I think that in this time of economic uncertainty we must better budget our money and proposition 5 does not seem like a wise investment right now.
*************************************************************************************************************
NATASHA YASHER
Should $460,000,000 annually be used to improve and expand treatment programs for people who are convicted of drug offenses? Should 19 board members direct parole and rehabilitation policy? Proposition 5 will require California to increase funding and supervision for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for non-violent drug offenders and parolees.
It will reduce criminal punishments for non-violent drug offenders and will mandate probation with treatment followed by a sealing of records after probation. Prop 5 will shorten parole for methamphetamine dealers and other drug offenses from three years to six months. The proposition will limit court’s authority to imprison offenders who violate probation or parole.
Supporters say prop 5 will cut state costs and reduce the overload of prisoners in prisons and instead use that money to give youth and nonviolent offenders drug treatment. Prop 5 is supported by organizations such as the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addicted Medicine, and Consumer Federation of California.
On the other hand, prison guards benefit from the overcrowded prisons and new prison buildings, say proponants, because they get more money. Many people opposing prop 5 complain it will reduce parole for drug dealers and criminals from three years to six months. To some, it almost gives them a “get-out-of-jail-free card” which will easily let them escape criminal prosecution. Many complain that millions of dollars will yearly be spent on creating rehabilitations during a time when the economy is unstable and unpredictable. Opposers do not like the fact that two new bureaucracies will be made with millions of taxpayer’s dollars.
The People Against the Proposition 5 Deception, one of the biggest committees against Proposition 5, the district attorneys of 32 California counties, Governor Pete Wilson and Governor Gray Davis, all oppose Proposition 5.
Some drug court judges in Yolo County say, “This is an initiative written by an advocacy group…we doubt that 5 percent of the voters of California will have read the entire text of this new law before they vote on it. Is this a good way to make state law?”
I personally think that Prop 5 is a great idea because I think that one of the biggest problems in this country is not knowing what to do with prisoners or people who commit crime. Putting them in jail, doesn’t necessarily change their actions or make them see the other side of things. By putting them in rehabilitation centers, at least they are learning why what they are doing is bad and how they can improve themselves and change their actions. At least people grow with rehabilitation centers instead of just sticking them in jail where they would not grow from anything or be motivated to change their actions. Putting people in rehabilitation centers will reduce drug dealers and crimes which occur in Los Angeles.