Make drug-sentencing law retroactive

Under current state law, the penalty for those who commit nonviolent drug offenses is mandatory drug treatment rather than incarceration. It’s a smart approach that attacks the problem — drug addiction. And it’s cheaper, too — it costs about $22,000 annually to jail inmates, but about $4,600 for drug treatment.
But what about those who committed their drug crimes before this law went into effect on July 1, 2003? About 150 of them are still stuck in prison.
That could change if lawmakers support a bill by Rep. Bill McCreary, R-Wellington, to make the state’s drug-sentencing law retroactive. Not only would this change make sentencing more fair, it would also free up prison bed space needed for the really dangerous criminals.
But, alas, given that it is an election year, the majority of lawmakers likely will be more concerned about not appearing “soft on crime” than they are about actually being “smart on crime.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

15 Comments

  1. Nathan
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    Are you familiar with the funnel effect in the Criminal Justice system Phillip?

    Basically, about 10% of those committing crime actually go to prison or jail.

    You say 150 people are behind bars for drug crimes.

    I have this hunch that they DESERVE to be there…

    Not every person in jail for drug crimes was caught smoking a joint in the privacy of their bedroom like all you liberals try to portray. Actually, I dount any of those in jail for their “drug crimes” were simple users.

  2. RD
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    As usual, Nathan, you don’t have a clue.

  3. Ben Huie
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

    Nathan – I have friends who work professionally in treatment/intervention and they say you are 100% wrong on this.

  4. Ian Santiago
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Those who are addicted to drugs should be put in effective treatment programs and those convicted of selling filthy narcotics should be executed!

    Viva La Raza Blanco!!

  5. Nathan
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Oh gee Ben and RD,

    I have talked to retired probation officers, detectives, prosecution and defense sttorney’s, professors of criminal justice and they tell me what I just said.

    Which part was I wrong on? Which part do I not have a clue about?

  6. anonymous
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Not only is he a biblical scholar, now he’s an expert on drug abuse. A man for all seasons.

  7. Joe Williams
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Isn’t it against the contitution to do an ex-post facto law?

  8. anonymous
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    Oh, NOW we’re worried about a violation of the Constitution?

  9. Damoon
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    I think it takes quite a bit for someone to actually do time for drug offences. Most get probation and fines, it’s the habitual offenders that get to do prison time. I know a guy who has been arrested numerous times for poccession, poccession with intent to sell, a DUI, forgery, domestic violence, resisting arrest, and weapons poccession, and he is STILL out on the streets. He has a dad with lots of money and a good lawyer. The system’s not fair, if he was a poor black guy, he’d be in prison.

  10. Joe Williams
    Posted February 9, 2006 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    anonymous! Do you know what ex-post facto means?

  11. Jed
    Posted February 10, 2006 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Da,I used to know a poor black guy who got sentenced to ten years in Lansing for simple marijuana possession during one of the DA’s periodic “crackdowns.” If he’d been able to afford a decent lawyer instead of his court-appointed POS, he’d have probably gotten probation. Instead, he got to be another conviction feather in Nola’s ugly hat, and a needless expense for the rest of us!

  12. Nathan
    Posted February 10, 2006 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    I knew a guy who knew a guy who’s cousin’s dog ran into an old lady who’s nephew’s brother says you are all wrong!

  13. Jed
    Posted February 10, 2006 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Nathan,Your guy who knew a guy who’s cousin’s dog ran into an old lady who’s nephew’s brother says you are all wrong is wrong.He was my next-door neighbor for seven years!

  14. Ben Huie
    Posted February 10, 2006 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Nathan – your “I dount any of those in jail for their “drug crimes” were simple users” is the part I say is wrong. The treatment professionals I know as well as Court-appointed attorneys tell me otherwise. The crazy thing is that, as damoon notes, with a good lawyer the guys who NEED to be jailed are not.

    Joe – I’m not certain but I think a law can be “relaxed” ex post facto.

  15. CrusaderX
    Posted February 10, 2006 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    BH,That’s true because the guys who NEED to be jailed are the multi-millionaire drug dealers who airlift the contraband from South American countries. The street drug-runners who distrbute it locally are just expendable third-party middle-men. However the big fish can afford the best legal defense money can buy, that’s why they hardly ever see the inside of a jail cell.