 | Talking Points to Oppose State Issue 1 (Why Drug Users Should Not Be Given a Constitutional Right to Treatment) It is unnecessary - The court already has authority under current law to order treatment instead of incarceration. And on successful completion, the court can order the charges dismissed. The true first offender charged with possession of a small quantity will almost always get the benefit of treatment or community control under current law. It ties the court's hands - The amendment mandates treatment in certain cases, depriving the judge of his or her discretion. While treatment is commonly used for first offenders in drug possession cases, there are some for whom it is inappropriate. The judge needs to retain the authority to make that decision on a case-by-case basis. It deprives the court of enforcement tools - The amendment reduces the penalty for drug possession for eligible offenders, even for those who fail to complete treatment, thereby removing an incentive to complete treatment and depriving the court of the stick to enforce it. Many who have benefitted from treatment say they would never have stuck to the program had they not been facing substantial penalties. It wastes treatment resources - The amendment mandates treatment for eligible offenders, even in cases where the offender is not addicted to or dependent on drugs. So resources will be expended on treatment of offenders who have no need for nor interest in treatment, but who enter a treatment program anyway solely to get the benefit of a lower sentence. It will mean fewer resources to treat those who could benefit - Treatment resources will be wasted on those who are only interested in the lower penalty, thus reducing the resources available for treatment of those who could truly benefit from treatment. It is misleading - A person is not considered a "repeat offender" unless he has at least two prior convictions for possession or use within five years and after the effective date of the amendment. So a person with any number of priors for possession before the effective date is not a repeat offender. An offender with ten possession convictions before the amendment can therefore be a "first- or second- time offender". An offender with three possession convictions over six years, even after the amendment, is also a "first- or second- time offender". A "violent felony" as defined does not include some rapes, robberies, and burglaries. It will waste taxpayer money on unnecessary litigation - The amendment is 6,500 words long, several pages of small print. Even experienced criminal lawyers disagree on the meaning of some provisions. This is an invitation to endless litigation, almost all of it at public expense. It can't be changed - No matter how defective or unworkable this proves to be in practice, it cannot be changed once written into the constitution, except by further constitutional amendment, a laborious and time-consuming process. This article may not be reprinted or reproduced in any way without written consent of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. |