Pubdate: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 Source: Oakland Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2001 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Contact: http://www.mapinc.org/media/314 Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/ Author: Thomas J. Orloff, Alameda County District Attorney. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act) COMMITTED TO DRUG TREATMENT THE Alameda County District Attorney's Office is, and always has been, deeply committed to drug treatment and rehabilitation. We were centrally involved in the creation of California's first drug court, a then-novel concept of jurisprudence focused on treatment for drug users. We have developed programs not mandated by statute to defer prosecution for first-time offenders and to motivate young dealers to seek employment and schooling. The rehabilitation of addicts significantly reduces the number of economic and violent crimes committed to support drug use. It also frees the afflicted citizen from the slavery of addiction and all its attendant personal costs. Of course, all of this is of critical importance to the citizens of Alameda County. We did, indeed, oppose Proposition 36 because it is a poorly conceived and sloppily written statute, which makes it difficult to achieve its own purpose. We were certainly not alone. Many groups and organizations, including The Oakland Tribune, expressed opposition to the proposed law. Numerous drug treatment providers and drug court defendants also opposed the initiative. These folks know better than anyone the value of brief custody time when necessary to facilitate detoxification and a commitment to recovery when the impulse to use is overwhelming. I cannot count the number of drug court participants who have hugged the district attorney and thanked the court for placing them in custody as part of a course of treatment, helping them to become clean and sober and giving them back their lives. In light of the misinformation put forth by the drafters of the proposition, it is likely that California voters believed that they were voting for what they already had in Alameda County -- a successful drug court devoted to treatment and rehabilitation. Proposition 36 is now law, and the Alameda County District Attorney's Office is committed to its success. It is the judge, not the district attorney, who determines a person's preconviction custody status. Our opposition to the wholesale release of all drug defendants prior to case resolution is not an attempt to circumvent the law but rather an attempt to realize its stated purpose. Because of the overwhelming control that addiction has on the lives of its victims, those addicts most in need of treatment are least likely to return to court. The result is a delay or prevention of treatment, in direct contradiction to the spirit of the law. Moreover, in Oakland, virtually all Proposition 36 cases are set for trial when the defendant is out of custody, because defense attorneys have correctly perceived that there is nothing to lose in light of the new law. This, too, inevitably results in treatment delays. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office is proud of its role as a leader and role model in the drug court movement. We continue our strong commitment to this most important cause, notwithstanding the additional challenges presented by Proposition 36. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk