Prop. 36 Would Be Death Knell for Drug Courts

Our highly innovative and successful drug courts in Orange County are facing a threat to their existence in November. Proposition 36, the “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act” initiative, which purports to support drug court treatment, will actually dismantle effective drug court programs. These programs have consistently produced outstanding results in treating nonviolent, addicted offenders not only locally but also nationwide.

Drug court programs have been and continue to be effective because they can impose strict sanctions. Participants are subject to search and seizure during the program, and are contacted frequently by probation and law enforcement personnel to ensure their compliance with program requirements.

In Orange County, adult drug courts started in the former Superior Court in Santa Ana in 1995. This program, which forms a collaboration of all local justice agencies and treatment, has expanded to all justice centers of the unified Superior Court. There also is a juvenile drug court in operation.

Since 1995, approximately 1,100 people have been accepted into the Orange County programs, and there are currently more than 500 in them. There are 275 program graduates countywide, and based upon periodic criminal record checks, 90% have remained arrest-free since graduation. There have been 12 drug-free babies born to mothers in the program since inception.

Proponents of the initiative previously spearheaded Proposition 215, the marijuana initiative, and now want California to again move in the direction of legalization of hard-core drugs. Under the initiative, a defendant would have no incentive to accept the authority of the drug court. The personality of the addict is lacking in self-discipline, and most would opt for a program that has little or no sanctions, similar to the one outlined in the initiative. Drug courts are distinct in that participants must adhere to a strict accountability program in which both treatment services and probation supervision are supported by frequent and random urine testing, court appearances, 12-step meeting attendance, regular counseling, job training or full-time employment.

There is currently a drug diversion law in California’s Penal Code that allows qualified individuals charged with drug possession offenses to complete a drug education program and have their charge dismissed. Unfortunately, this law is highly ineffective because defendants simply do not attend. Recently, I issued more than 30 arrest warrants for defendants who failed to comply with the requirements of that law. They would have received a dismissal if they had just completed the program. The initiative is similar in many ways to this weak drug diversion law. Does it make sense to create another drug diversion program when the one we have does not work?

Should this initiative pass, police agencies would be unlikely to use their limited resources to arrest, write reports and store evidence on drug possession cases when the courts effectively would be powerless in meting out punishment to change the defendant’s addictive behavior. This initiative also would add to clogged court calendars because there would be no risk in going to trial.

Even if convicted, one would receive only probation. Moreover, those who participate in drug treatment programs and for whatever reason find that they are no longer amenable to the treatment, may have another court hearing to change their treatment provider. The only real authority provided to the court under this initiative is that upon a third violation, the court can “drop the hammer,” sentencing the defendant to a maximum of 30 days in custody. Is this an effective punishment for repeated violations?

The touted War on Drugs may not have produced the desired results. Perhaps too much in resources addressed the supply side and interdiction efforts and not enough resources were allocated to address the demand side, trying to change the lives of addicts caught in the endless cycle of addiction and crime.

Treatment does cost money and the national cost estimate for the typical 18-month drug court program is about $3,500 per individual. Should an addict be incarcerated at the local or state level, the cost estimate is $21,243 yearly.

The cost ratio here is apparent and drug court is a good investment for the taxpaying community. Effective outpatient treatment in the drug court model is the answer, not an initiative based on a model that has proved to be ineffective.

Please take time to read both sides of the issue carefully. Proposition 36 needs to be defeated. In the last 10 years the drug court movement has restored the effectiveness of drug treatment with a collaborative approach providing meaningful sanctions for program violations. Legalization of drugs will provide no remedy to the community or those who are addicted.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald P. Kreber is assigned to Central Justice Center Felony Drug Court.