Pubdate: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
Source: Idaho State Journal (ID)
Copyright: 2001 Idaho State Journal
Contact:  PO Box 431, Pocatello ID 83204
Fax: 208-233-8007
Website: http://www.journalnet.com/

LEGISLATURE SHOULD RETHINK DRUG OFFENDER REGISTRY

Our View: It seems well intentioned, but a drug registry proposal amounts to
a waste of time.

As well-intentioned as it may be, a proposal to create a drug registry
should be dropped by Idaho legislators.

Senate Bill 1150 would create a registry of those convicted of drug crimes
similar to the registry presently in place for repeat sex offenders. It
would require individuals convicted of two felony drug violations to
register for a minimum of 10 years with law enforcement agencies where the
offender resides. Failure to register would be grounds for criminal
prosecution.

Passed unanimously by the Senate last week, the bill just naturally sounds
like the right thing to do. But lawmakers should pause to more closely
examine the bill. We think it has more political public relations value than
crime-fighting value.

For instance, isn't the law redundant? What additional force does it bestow
on law enforcement officials? The information that it would provide, it
seems, is already available.

Additionally, while there may be real merit to a sex offender registry
(local agencies and neighborhoods might be truly served by being notified of
the presence of convicted predatory criminals who, statistics show, are more
likely to commit repeat offenses), the drug offense registry seems like more
of an extended punishment than a crime fighting tool.

Registrants, after 10 years, may petition to be exempted, but petitions can
be denied and there is no definite time limit for the registry. That's a
scary precedent: without any judicial input, lawbreakers would continue to
be punished years after serving their sentences.

Do drug offenders deserve extra punishment? Some, perhaps ... such as
methamphetamine lab operators who endanger family members and neighbors. But
why not let the sentencing judge make that call?

And there's one other thing: How many different lawbreakers deserve equal
persecution? Burglars? Poachers? Those who repeatedly drive while
intoxicated should, perhaps, be on a special registry. How about spouse and
child abusers?

Where does the list of potential registries ever end?

There's no denying that drug trafficking, abuse and addiction continue to be
scourges of epidemic proportion, and we do need to take collective action.
But there are more constructive methods: by building better educational and
treatment programs and by better equipping law enforcement agencies.

This is just another law for police to enforce, while giving them little in
the way of essential tools to fight the root causes. It's wasted effort.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Andrew