Rick Scott Vetoes Bill Sending Non-Violent Drug Offenders To Rehab After Serving

[ben says]

My personal favorite from the New Yorker: THE CAGING OF AMERICA: Why Do We Lock Up So Many People? Six million people are under correctional supervision in the U.S.â€"more than were in Stalin’s gulags!

The accelerating rate of incarceration over the past few decades is just as startling as the number of people jailed: in 1980, there were about two hundred and twenty people incarcerated for every hundred thousand Americans; by 2010, the number had more than tripled, to seven hundred and thirty-one. No other country even approaches that. In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. Ours is, bottom to top, a “carceral state,” in the flat verdict of Conrad Black, the former conservative press lord and newly minted reformer, who right now finds himself imprisoned in Florida, thereby adding a new twist to an old joke: A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who’s been indicted; and a passionate prison reformer is a conservative who’s in one.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz1rlLWnFQ2

[Tacachale]

Look, NotNow, are you really arguing that the current system of just locking people up for non-violent drug offenses for years, all at taxpayer expense, really works? Do you really think this (Republican-crafted) bill would have made things worse (or more expensive)? Show your work.

[BridgeTroll]

Since it was a near unanimous vote with only 4 against... the legislature should be able to overturn the veto with ease...

[Tacachale]

It will be instructive to look at what the legislation actually would have done.

The House version:

GENERAL BILL by Judiciary Committee; Rulemaking and Regulation Subcommittee; Criminal Justice Subcommittee; Porth; Campbell; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Baxley; Costello; Fullwood; Glorioso; Grant; Pafford; Pilon; Rogers; Rouson; Sands

Inmate Reentry; Directs DOC to develop & administer reentry program for nonviolent offenders; requires substance abuse treatment & rehabilitative programming; specifies eligibility criteria; requires notice to court & state attorney; authorizes state attorney to object; directs court to screen & select eligible offenders for program based on specified considerations; requires court to notify DOC of decision within specified period; requires education & substance abuse assessment; requires enrollment in adult education in specified circumstances; requires assessments of vocational skills & career education be provided; provides that offender is subject to disciplinary rules; requires that DOC report to sentencing court before offender is scheduled to complete program; requires court to hold hearing to consider modifying sentence & authorizing placement on drug offender probation if performance is satisfactory; authorizes revocation of probation & imposition of original sentence in specified circumstances; requires annual report; authorizes administrative or protective confinement; authorizes incentives to promote participation & orderly operation; directs DOC to develop system for tracking recidivism; provides for nonseverability of certain provisions.

Last Action: 04/06/2012 Vetoed by Governor

Effective Date: October 1, 2012

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2012/177

Summary:

This bill creates a new section of the Florida Statutes that requires the Department of Corrections (department) to develop and administer a nonviolent offender reentry program. The program is limited to inmates who are imprisoned for committing a nonviolent third degree felony and who have not previously been convicted of certain serious offenses. With approval of the sentencing court, nonviolent offenders with substance abuse issues who have served at least one-half of their sentence and who are selected by the department may participate in the program. If the offender successfully completes the program, the court must modify the offender’s sentence and place him or her on drug offender probation. The modified sentence must be for a period at least as long as the remainder of the prison sentence if the sentence has not been modified.

Among the conditions of drug offender probation that can be ordered by the court is placement of the offender in  a community residential or non-residential substance abuse treatment facility. If available in the county where the offender will live upon release from incarceration, the court can order participation in a postadjudicatory drug court program as a condition of probation.

The nonviolent offender reentry program is intended to divert nonviolent offenders from long periods of incarceration when a reduced period followed by intensive substance abuse treatment may have the same deterrent effect, protect the public, rehabilitate the offender, and reduce recidivism. The department is required to submit an annual report that includes details regarding the operation of the program as well as its goals and recommended legislative action. In addition, it must develop a method for tracking recidivism of program participants and report the recidivism rate in the annual report.

If approved by the Governor, these provisions take effect October 1, 2012.

Vote: Senate 40-0; House 112-4

http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2012/html/93

In other words, the government would have hand-selected people imprisoned for non-violent offenses, who didn't have a record of violent crime, and who had drug abuse problems. If they served half of their sentence they could participate in a re-entry program. If they passed that program, they could be sent to rehab to work on their addiction instead of just taking taxpayer-subsidized recidivism lessons in prison. And if they didn't stick to the program, they'd go back in.

Yeah, that sounds terrible to me...

[ben says]

^ +10000

[NotNow]

Jeffrey,

I have not studied the bill, but on its face it doesn't sound like a good idea.  As you know, I am generally in favor of legalizing MJ.  Sales, distribution, and taxing of that product should not be an issue.  It seems to me a more realistic, and useful legislation would more clearly differentiate and punish dealers v. users.  I have no issue, and in fact favor, rehab for first offenders with misdemeanor or personal use amounts of drugs.  (Gram or less). 

Ben,

Everyone knows "right" and "wrong".  How much money your family has doesn't change that.  I'll grant that some children grow up in families where criminality is the norm, but that is the subject of another thread about custody.   But society cannot give allowances for money or social standing, otherwise we are no longer a nation of laws but of class. 

There are great differences between  jails and prisons.  You should differentiate between the two.  I would be happy to debate the usefulness of three strike and repeat offender laws in a different forum, but there is no way we can cover that ground here.

Like I said, I'll check out the book. 

No fictional TV show is like real life.  It's called drama for a reason.  I've seen a few episodes.  Cool show.  Not real life.  I find it hard to believe that any professional would claim their professional life mirrored "The Wire", but apparently you have met some.  I disagree with them.  The majority would.

I am arguing that we should continue to lock up drug dealers and drug traffickers.  I think this (Republican crafted-who cares?) bill is well intentioned but off the mark.  Which "non-violent" offenders are we talking about?  Who qualifies as an "addict"?  Why not clearly identify "addicts" and small possession cases initially and intervene prior to moving through the courts and sentencing?  Wouldn't that save MUCH more money? 

As for the NYT piece, there are numerous reasons for the incarceration rate in this country.  A large part of the problem IS illegal drug use.  A large part is sociological.  We utilize the criminal justice system in many areas of our lives that we didn't used to.  Teachers can't discipline students anymore, we need "School Resource Officers" for that? 

By the way, the Chinese are not well known for their lenience on narcotics cases. 

[NotNow]

Taca,

What would be the cost of this program?

[Tacachale]

Taca,

What would be the cost of this program?

I'll see if anyone has any estimates. Most, if not all, opinions I've read indicate it would be lower than prison. IMO even if it cost the same amount as prison it would still be worth it, as it has much higher potential to keep people from offending again than prison does.

At any rate, cost was not even mentioned by Scott in his veto letter.

http://capitalsoup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/HB-177-Veto-Letter1.pdf

[NotNow]

OK, I still think that identification of "real" personal use amount offenders and addicts should be done immediately after arrest and referred then to jail alternatives.  I also still think that you all have an incorrect idea of who we have in prison. 

But....my opinion is only one of many.  Thanks for your ideas.

[Tacachale]

This is why I like reading your posts, NotNow. Even if I disagree with you on particular items your opinions are well considered and clearly stated.

Honestly I can't disagree with you on identifying "personal use" offenders and addicts right after arrest. But I definitely think there are others who, after serving half of their (sometimes highly exaggerated) sentence for non-violent crimes where substance abuse was a contributing factor, would take to rehabitatiob. When you consider that this would be less expensive for taxpayers compared to our current unsustainable system of overusing incarceration, it seems like a no brainer.