|
Prop 36 Update |
|
|
E-mail
this page
to a friend |
|
|
Vol. 1, No. 1 August 8, 2001
Announcing the Prop. 36 Update
Proposition 36 is underway! On July
1, 2001, California’s new initiative allowing
for treatment instead of jail for non-violent drug
offenders went into effect.
So far, everything is on track. However,
there are still questions as to how to implement Prop.
36 most effectively. Is enough money going directly
to treatment? How can affected community members become
more involved in the implementation process? Who,
exactly, is eligible? Is there a sufficient range
of treatment options available?
These questions and many others will
be addressed in the new “Prop. 36 Update”
– a new newsletter by The Lindesmith Center -
Drug Policy Foundation (Lindesmith-DPF), a non-profit
organization working on public health alternatives
to the war on drugs.
This week’s topic: Who is
eligible for Prop. 36?
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention
Act, also known as Proposition 36, clearly states
that first- and second-time, nonviolent, simple drug
possession offenders are eligible to receive probation
and substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration.
However, there is already strong
debate in various counties as to which offenders will
benefit. When Prop. 36 became effective on July 1,
it mandated that persons “convicted” on
or after this date should be eligible for treatment.
This has created ambiguity in certain cases because
under California law there is no bright-line rule
as to when a conviction is said to be final. Because
of procedural convenience, conviction is sometimes
said to occur at the time of a plea or jury verdict,
and sometimes at the time of sentencing.
The cases of Darrell Eugene Scoggins
and Janet Delong
Consider the current cases of two
defendants in Los Angeles County, Darrell Eugene Scoggins
and Janet Delong. Both were found guilty before July
1, but not sentenced until afterwards.
In both of these cases, the judges
found the defendants ineligible for treatment under
Prop. 36, a position disputed by Lindesmith-DPF, because
both defendants clearly meet the criteria for treatment
and can be properly considered convicted on their
sentencing dates. Their cases are currently under
appellate review.
The Court of Appeal is expected to
clarify the issue sometime in September. Meanwhile,
in keeping with the spirit of Prop. 36, they have
ordered the defendants released from jail pending
their decision.
The Alliance's Position
Our position is the same as the California
Judicial Council, the California Department of Alcohol
and Drug Programs (which officially oversees Prop.
36) and the California Public Defender’s Association:
the sentencing date should be the date of conviction.
Because Prop. 36 is a probation initiative and probation
is not granted until sentencing, holding the sentencing
date to be the date of conviction for purposes of
Prop 36 makes sense. Such a finding by the Court of
Appeal in Los Angeles will go a long way toward furthering
the intent of California voters, who did not intend
for those in need of drug treatment to be victims
of legal hair-splitting.
Upcoming Events
Successful implementation of Prop.
36 depends on active community involvement. The following
upcoming events offer such an opportunity. Two African
American women, Kemba Smith and Dorothy Gaines, who
were granted clemency by President Clinton after being
sentenced to excessively long prison terms for their
tangential roles in their boyfriends’ drug conspiracies,
will join hundreds of California residents to draw
attention to issues of race and the drug war, mandatory
minimums, and Prop. 36.
Sacramento – Wed., Aug.
8, 3:30-5 PM, Capital Plaza Holiday Inn, Calif. Room,
300 “J” St.
Fresno – Thurs., Aug.
9, 7-9 PM, Ted C. Wills Community Center, 770 No.
San Pablo Ave. For more information about these events,
please call Lauren Leslie at Legal Services for Prisoners
with Children, (415) 255-7036 x 318.
see previous
updates
|
