Presented by the ACLU of Pennsylvania
to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Good morning Senator Greenleaf and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Larry Frankel and I am the Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you for inviting me to present testimony to the Judiciary Committee today.
It is my understanding that the primary focus of House Bill 28 is the proposed changes to Section 7508(a) of Title 18. This legislation would create a mandatory minimum sentence for those who deal heroin.
I believe that the members of this Committee already know of the ACLU's consistent opposition to mandatory minimum sentences. We object to mandatory sentencing schemes because they eliminate judicial discretion and preclude a consideration of the individual circumstances in a case. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend the General Assembly for having resisted most of the recent attempts to create additional mandatory sentences.
Rather than repeating what we have said on numerous occasions about mandatory minimum sentences, I would prefer to use my time today to discuss what I have learned about the recent experience in Arizona where the state has undertaken a serious attempt to use drug treatment programs rather than incarceration to fight drugs.
The ACLU hopes you will consider what is happening in Arizona and think about what could be done in Pennsylvania to address the substance abuse problems of those who commit crimes. We think that a greater commitment to treating addiction rather than relying solely on incarceration could do far more to reduce the social problems associated with drugs.
In November of 1996, by a 2-1 margin, the voters in Arizona passed the "Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act" (Proposition 200). That proposition was supported by former Senators Barry Goldwater and Dennis DeConcini and a wide array of doctors, judges, clergy and citizens. That Act provides, inter alia, for:
- No jail time for those convicted of drug possession for the first time. These defendants receive probation and mandatory drug treatment.
- Paroling prisoners convicted of drug possession and requiring them to participate in drug treatment or education programs. Violent offenders are not paroled.
- Establishment of the Drug Treatment and Education Fund through a luxury tax on alcohol and tobacco products.
Implementation of these provisions of Proposition 200 was delayed due to the reluctance of the Arizona Legislature and Governor to embrace these changes.
Nevertheless, these provisions, particularly those concerning defendants on probation, are now being followed and they appear to be producing positive results. Reports prepared this spring by the Arizona Supreme Court and the Arizona Auditor General have concluded that the mandatory treatment law has shown some success.
The Supreme Court study concluded that treatment has broken many drug users' habits and saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. The study found that 77 percent of the offenders sent to treatment programs remained drug-free at the end of the year and that Arizona saved $2.5 million by sending users into treatment programs rather than prison.
You may be interested in their finding that the rate at which offenders are testing free of drugs in significantly higher in Arizona than is found for offenders on probation in most other states.
I have attached to my testimony a copy of testimony presented by Barbara A. Broderick, State Director of Adult Probation, Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona Supreme Court to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, Committee of Government Reform, Arizona House of Representatives in July of this year.
She noted that the provisions of the new Act have given adult probation officers an ability to get many more individuals into treatment. She also noted a significant reduction in the waiting time for defendants to enter treatment programs.
Arizona's significant achievements, so far, could be best understood by looking at the title of Ms. Broderick's testimony: "The Arizona Experience: Probation with Treatment Protects the Community."
In that testimony, Ms. Broderick refers to the Arizona Supreme Court Study and the audit prepared by the Auditor General. (I have brought copies of both those reports for your review). With the Committee's indulgence, I would like to quote from Ms. Broderick's testimony regarding the audit (at page 4):
The audit found that substance abusers who consistently attended or successfully completed treatment were much more likely to succeed on probation as compared to the control group. About 85 percent of the individuals who completed drug treatment successfully completed their terms of probation and 80 percent of those who consistently attended alcohol abuse programs finished their probation satisfactorily.
By contrast, only 22 percent of those not completing treatment finished their probation term. For those probationers who were not identified as needing services, only 57 percent successfully completed their probation term.
Further, the audit uncovered that probationers graduating from treatment/counseling programs had significantly fewer subsequent arrests than non-graduates and had remained drug-free longer.
The audit also notes a 90 percent completion rate for probationers who were consistently employed during probation versus 41 percent for those unemployed, and an 85 percent success rate for those completing their community service versus 40 percent for those who did not.
These factors also led to significantly fewer re-arrests and positive drug tests while on probation. In addition, the audit found that the statewide probationer sample was paying full victim restitution, and nearly two thirds paid full fines and fees.
By presenting this information on the Arizona experience, I do not mean to suggest that Pennsylvania should just imitate what Arizona is doing. However, the ACLU does hope that you will want to learn more about what is being tried in that state and consider whether this kind of approach presents a more realistic means for changing nonviolent defendants with substance abuse problems.
In our opinion, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania might find that the creative use of treatment programs does a good job of protecting our communities. Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I will be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.