While Colorado Senate Bill 12-163 has gone largely unnoticed by mainstream media, it’s raising a good amount of debate in the state.
The bill reduces the penalty for possession of 4 grams or less of certain drugs from a Class 6 Felony to a Class 1 Misdemeanor and reduces the penalty for possession of more than 4 grams of those certain drugs from a Class 4 Felony to a Class 6 Felony. The bill appropriates the savings from the reduction in the criminal penalties to substance abuse treatment programs. The department of human services will develop a trauma-informed substance abuse treatment and best practices training program. The bill requires a post-enactment review after two years that addresses the impact of the bill on jails and the amount of funding for jail-based treatment.
Both Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, with support from the Colorado Methamphetamine Task Force, are opposing the legislation. Morrissey argues that the law will “destroy” Denver’s drug court because his office will no longer be able to entice addicts into drug treatment, something often done by pressuring them with a felony charge. Successful completion of a drug court program can result in a reduction to a misdemeanor conviction.
At a March 23rd meeting, the Meth Task Force, whose membership includes representatives from the judiciary, the defense bar, law enforcement, and the district attorneys, unanimously agreed that by removing the motivation to avoid a felony conviction, fewer offenders will engage in treatment or successfully address their substance abuse issues. The Task Force also argues that this is an important time to continue to “communicate the message that drugs are taken very seriously by our society.” The bill promises to save state taxpayers $1 million the first year, and $2.2 million the following year because fewer people would be in courts and state prison. They also underscore that the savings must be spent on drug treatment programs.
Having worked in the Denver Drug Court for 2 years, I agree that the carrot and stick approach used in drug courts to coerce people into treatment has been successful. In some cases a drug court participant may be eligible to have a deferred sentence or judgment if they successfully complete the drug court program. But I also think it would be premature to speculate that there would be a positive correlation to an increase in crime if this legislation passes, as that runs counter to the current decade-long decrease in crime rates we’ve seen nationwide.
It is no secret that Colorado’s current funding level for drug and alcohol treatment leaves much room for improvement. The proposed legislation would take a step in the right direction by offering additional treatment options and training on evidence-based practices for treatment providers, which are desperately needed while maintaining the carrot and stick approach.
Critics may also be discounting the fact that at the misdemeanor level, there is a level of community supervision (County level probation or even private probation supervision) that would occur upon conviction. The courts ultimately will reconcile the appropriate level of accountability for the offenders and combine that with increased treatment options, which should balance the risk and needs of the offender with community safety.
A concern voiced by Morrissey in relation to the potential impact on drug courts is that of separating the drug dealers from addicts. This has been a long-standing challenge with drug courts across the country, and there are screening processes in place to appropriately separate dealers from the addicts. The fact is the Denver Drug Court does not accept those charged with offenses for dealing or manufacturing, thus diverting felony level offenders into a misdemeanor level of offense may in fact allow the court to focus its resources on the clients that need the most help.
Saving the state money could cost counties
The Trinidad Times is the lone mainstream news outlet in the state to report on the proposed law—or the vehement opposition from the state’s leaders in law enforcement and the judiciary. “Reduction in penalties could crowd county jails” reports that while the legislation could reduce the financial burden for the state prison system, it could also create an unfunded mandate for Colorado counties. This same issue is burdening county facilities across the state of California, where federal law (AB 109) mandated that certain low risk offenders be removed from state prison supervision and remanded to the county level for incarceration and community supervision.
What do you think? Does SB 12-163 put the focus on treatment of drug offenders, or does it actually harm the ability of law enforcement to entice addicted offenders in to programs such as drug courts, where they can better motivate compliance via treatment?
