How I’m voting for the environment in the Nov. 4, 2008 election.
You know how our jails are overcrowded, our state budget’s short, and our “War on Drugs” has been pretty much a total failure? Well, Prop 5’s an initiative trying to tackle all three problems at once.
Basically, Prop 5 would revamp our prison and parole systems to make rehab and drug treatment a priority for nonviolent offenders. By giving nonviolent offenders with addiction problems the help they need, we’d be able to save money spent on imprisoning people in our already-overcrowded jails, as well as rehabilitate them to prevent them from committing similar drug-related crimes in the future.
As Ben Wallace-Wells points out in his expose “How America Lost the War on Drugs” in Rolling Stone, “We continue to lock up generations of teenage drug dealers, even though we know imprisonment does little to reduce the amount of drugs sold on the street.” Ben quotes quotes Lee Brown, director of national drug control policy under Clinton:
“When I worked as an undercover narcotics officer, I was living the life of an addict so I could make buys and make busts of the dealers,” Brown tells me. “When you’re in that position, you see very quickly that you can’t arrest your way out of this. You see the cycle over and over again of people using drugs, getting into trouble, going to prison, getting out and getting into drugs again. At some point I stepped back and asked myself, ‘What impact is all of this having on the drug problem? There has to be a better way.’ “
That better way’s Prop 5. Prop 5 also builds on the work of Prop 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, passed in California in 2000, which has been largely successful — and has saved taxpayers money.
Opponents to Prop 5 basically claim that the initiative’s a get of jail free card, but many checks are in place to hold offenders accountable. Besides, with jails as overcrowded as they are, we already know many criminals aren’t doing their time anyway, Nicole Richie and Lindsey Lohan being famous cases in point. That kind of overcrowding-induced get out of jail free card is what we want to avoid.
The opposing arguments to Prop 5 actually get pretty ridiculous. The LA Times, for example argues that Prop 5 won’t work because “Treatment professionals know that addicts need a ‘moment of clarity’ — a point at which they hit bottom, or close enough to it that they can soberly acknowledge the state they are in and the need for change.” Um, which quack treatment professionals are these? Check out this bit from The Partnership for a Drug Free America’s “13 Myths about Drug Abuse and Treatment“:
MYTH #8: Nobody will voluntarily seek treatment until they hit ‘rock bottom.’
FACT: There are many things that can motivate a person to enter and complete substance abuse treatment before they hit “rock bottom.”
This rock bottom myth is actually one that’s been roundly debunked. I know the LA Times is shortstaffed these days, but WTF?
I am extremely torn on this proposition now. I think it’s ridicules how many people we lock up for small drug charges when they really need rehab. I was all for it, until I discovered people convicted of vehicular manslaughter could escape jail time.
We need to stop locking up people for petty drug charges, but driving under the influence is something I am absolutely opposed to, and something I feel warrants jail time. If that little bit hadn’t been snuck in, I would be all for it. As a cyclist especially I do not want to see people killing others with their cars and getting a little slap on the wrist.
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — October 30, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
Such a shame that the violent act of vehicular manslaughter gets to have it’s punishment softened with this otherwise good proposition. I’m afraid I’m going to have to go with a no vote until a reform comes that really only effects non-violent offenders.
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — October 30, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
Hey Gary — I hear you about not wanting people to just get a slap on the wrist. I think what I’m most concerned about here is how best to prevent further drunk driving.
As all my friends who’ve been arrested for drunk driving (yes, I have a lot of those, though they’ve all been lucky enough not to have hurt, much less killed, anyone) and had to go to “class” can attest, some of the people they see there are repeat offenders, some of whom have served jail time. For the seriously addicted who haven’t gotten rehab help, jail time doesn’t necessarily provide the motivation to quit the drunk driving.
I think we’d like to think that harsh punishment somehow shakes people out of their addictions, but sadly, that’s not the case. Drug addicts need help specifically targeted at helping them kick the habit.
I really don’t think Prop 5’s a get out of jail free card. I see it as something that forces people to own up to their addictions — and address the root of the problem. If we want less drunk driving, we should support Prop 5.
Comment by Siel — October 30, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
I hear you, but there is a difference between vehicular manslaughter and getting a DUI. In one scenario, one or more people have already been killed.
The punishment of jail time is more complex than just a matter of reforming people, it’s a matter of making a point to everyone else that serious acts will receive serious consequences. In the case of vehicular manslaughter, I believe a person deserves jail time although they should be put in rehab in addition to that.
The driver, a doctor no less, who nearly killed riders from our local shop Cynergy by intentionally cutting off the riders and slamming the brakes on a downhill, is likely going to walk without jail time since he can afford good lawyers. The consistently soft punishment for using a car to hurt and kill sends a message that shooting people has serious consequences, but running them over is not so bad.
I also feel that vehicular manslaughter should mean permanently revoking a persons drivers license. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, and reckless driving can take away a persons life or leave them seriously crippled.
Shoot up meth in your house, being caught on the street with pot, whatever it is, is very different from going behind the wheel and putting innocent lives at risk.
95% of Prop 5 I’m all for, but that 5% that lets reckless drivers off the hook is strong enough I’m still inclined to vote no now that I am aware of it.
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — October 31, 2008 @ 10:55 am
But what is the difference between 1) a drunk driver who was lucky enough not to kill anyone, and 2) a drunk driver who was unlucky enough to accidentally kill someone? I agree — drunk driving sucks, and death by drunk driving really really sucks. But I don’t see how — aside from pure chance and circumstance — the decisions / actions / motives of the #1 people differ from the #2 people — even if we’d like to assign more blame to the latter.
The example you cite of the dude involved in the Mandeville incident really has nothing to do with the question at hand — which is about drunk driving / drug addiction, which weren’t factors involved in this issue.
Regardless, coming back to Prop 5: A judge would still decide what the consequences a drunk driver would face would be — and after having read the prop in detail, I think it’s highly unlikely that someone convicted of manslaugher — even if involuntary — would get off with no jail time. This bit’s something the conservatives are using as a fear tactic to oppose the measure.
Comment by Siel — October 31, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Well if it was up to me, personally the person caught being drunk, and the person who kills from drunk driving, both would get jail time. I know this prop it self does not specially relate to the mandeville incident, however I feel that generally speaking, the seriousness of automobile crimes is treating far too lightly in the legal system, and anything that perpetuates that I’m opposed to.
I’ll read some more into it before I make a choice, but upon hearing it could potentially lower the punishment for vehicular manslaughter, that instantly killed my enthusiasm for prop 5. Drivers routinely kill and get away with it, sometimes without the police even conducting a proper investigation. Given the current circumstances of vehicle crimes, I’m skeptical that this will not somehow be used as another excuse to let me more drivers off the hook.
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — November 2, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Digging into this a little further, getting some other opinions, including some actual reading from the real text, it looks like this vehicular manslaughter claim is an outright lie. It’s an effective tactic, since I’m sure anyone much like my self with a strong investment of interest in vehicle crimes was immediately alarmed to hear such a thing. Now that I’ve sorted this out I am back to the leaning toward yes corner.
Here is the text concerning the conditions for deferring judgment, and anyone who commits a serious or violent crime in addition to their drug conviction is not eligible, nor are they eligible if convicted for a serious or violent crime in the past 5 years:
1210.03 Track I. Treatment Diversion with Deferred Entry of Judgment.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, drug treatment shall be provided to eligible defendants. A defendant is eligible for the disposition options, sanctions and treatment programs of Track I diversion if:
(1) The defendant is charged with one or more nonviolent drug possession offenses.
(2) The defendant has never been convicted of an offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony.
(3) The defendant has no prior conviction for any felony, other than a single nonviolent drug possession offense, within five years prior to the alleged commission of the charged offense.
(4) The defendant is not charged with any other offense that is not a nonviolent drug possession offense.
(b) A defendant who is not eligible solely because of a concurrent charge
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — November 3, 2008 @ 11:34 am
I had thought maybe judges had leeway on interpreting what constituted a “serious” crime — that possibly being the highly unlikely scenario being touted by the No on 5 people. I find it frustrating that it’s still difficult to decipher some of these nitty gritties despite a lot of reading on the issues, and am annoyed that the Yes on Prop 5 haven’t provided more details about this accusation on their website.
In any case, I think we do differ fundamentally on our view of what will actually deter drunk driving. So many studies on drug addiction have shown that this “making a point to everyone else that serious acts will receive serious consequences” doesn’t actually work to deter drug usage / drug-related crimes. Drug addicts, in general, aren’t thinking rationally about the possible consequences of their actions. I feel like this “teach a lesson” thing’s one of the reasons the “tough on crime” people use in order to get votes / political popularity via fear mongering — thus wasting our tax dollars without actually making us any more safe.
But I’m glad we’re both voting yes on 5 –
Comment by Siel — November 3, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
I understand where you are coming from, and it’s for this reason I’m kind of skeptical of MADD. I personally think things like running the upcoming red line extension of hours till 3AM will do a lot more to reduce drunk driving than hackable breath test interlock system for cars.
However I still feel drunk driving should be treated very seriously since it goes beyond personal choice to put them self at risk, but is making a personal choice to threaten others. Even if a person has an addiction, that doesn’t mean they can’t find a designated driver, take a bus, or call a cab. Even if this making a point doesn’t curb their drinking, it may curb their choice to add driving to the mix.
I’m also opposed to what I see as an inequality of justice. A justice system that says killing people is bad, but if you’re going to do it, use a car, that’s much better and we will go soft on you.
That being said, I think ultimately the most effective solution to road fatalities is reforms to our entire traffic system. No amount of severe punishment is going to stamp out road fatalities if we continue to design unsafe roads, drive unsafe vehicles (like SUV’s versus pedestrians) and build automobile dependence into our cities. This also means looking much further than drunk driving, since that is only one component of a failed system. If we eliminated all drunk driving tomorrow, we would still have grossly unacceptable levels of preventable deaths on our roads.
Comment by Gary Kavanagh — November 3, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Just wanted to clarify that I’m not saying drunk drivers who hit & kill people shouldn’t go to jail (double negative!). The gravity of taking someone’s life — even if accidentally — seems to merit grave punishment. I’m simply questioning the ability of jails to “cure” alcoholism — and am thinking out loud (or in type) about the fact that the same behavior / decisions (driving drunk) can legally result in such different consequences (some never getting into trouble, others just getting pulled over and getting their license temporarily revoked, etc., others going to jail b/c they hit someone — which either of the former groups could’ve easily done too, had they been less lucky)…. I suppose the seeming unfairness of that is life –
We should author Prop 13: The complete streets act :)
Comment by Siel — November 4, 2008 @ 10:41 am