Serving Bread

Proposition 5 reforms the sentencing and rehabilitation of drug offenders. It expands treatment for those convicted of drug-related offenses and it imposes a sentencing guideline for judges to follow. This proposition creates a somewhat complicated new system where offenders would go through treatment and fit into one of three tracks that matches a person’s crime.

I agree with some of the underlying arguments in this initiative—that treatment and rehabilitation may be better responses to drug-related offenses than incarceration. However, I find that the proposition itself creates a new and unnecessary bureaucracy and system that will not do much to address any of our drug problems. Here are my top three reasons for voting “No”:

1. The first paragraph in the argument in favor of Proposition 5 reads: “Our state prisons are badly overcrowded. Since the Legislature has been unable to solve the problem, we, the people, must do it with Proposition 5.” The proponents of Proposition 5 seem less concerned with the rehabilitation of a drug offender and more concerned with the state of our prison system. It is unreasonable to address overcrowding by simply a decriminilization process (especially the process described in this initiative).
2. Our drug-laws are in need of reform, but Proposition 5 is not the way to go. For examples, laws and sentencing tend to be biased against African Americans than other ethnic communities. Our justice system needs to learn to be more blind in how it prosecutes, convicts and sentences criminals.  Any reformation to our drug laws should address some of the inequalities of how justice is rendered.
3. Judges should be given more leeway on how to extend sentencing. Proposition 5 handcuffs a judge’s ability to extend his or her judgment on a particular case. Judges—not voters—should be deciding sentences.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----