DISTRICT ATTORNEY ATTACKS PROPOSITION 36

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully called
Proposition 36 a criminal justice "mockery" Wednesday, saying it would
undermine court-sanctioned drug treatment programs already in place.

Superior Court judicial candidate Don Steed joined Scully in the news
conference attacking the initiative that seeks to treat drug users as sick
people with underlying illnesses rather than as criminals who need to be
incarcerated.

Steed's opponent, Trena Burger, who was not invited to attend the event
outside the Capitol, accused him of violating the judicial code of ethics
by speaking out on a controversy "that could come before the courts." Steed
said his remarks didn't violate the code.

Scully, in calling the November ballot initiative "a thinly-disguised
attempt to legalize dangerous drugs," predicted that passage of the measure
would "create (an) environment in which crime flourishes" by sharply
restricting the ability of judges to jail or imprison drug offenders who
fail at treatment.

"Proposition 36 strips the courts of any effective sanction for
non-compliance with treatment programs," Scully said. "It undermines
California's legitimate treatment programs and seriously weakens anti-drug
laws by giving felony drug abusers a get-out-of-jail-free card."

The initiative seeks to subject people arrested for personal possession of
drugs such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine to court-mandated
treatment programs. The measure contains a $120 million provision to fund
the programs. The state Legislative Analyst's Office says the measure would
save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by diverting 36,000 drug
possession offenders from jails and prisons.

Opponents say it poses a major threat to public safety by removing drug
users who steal and rob and sometimes kill to support their habits from
criminal sanctions for simple possession of the illicit substances.

Dave Fratello, a spokesman for the Yes on Prop. 36 campaign, disagreed with
Scully that the initiative poses a threat to public safety. He said the
measure would reduce drug-related crime by doubling state spending on
programs to treat addiction and that it includes sanctions for offenders
who flout them.

"While we're offering a helping hand through the system, it's not a free
ride," Fratello said. "If you don't take the treatment seriously, if you
don't make a commitment to getting off drugs, then real jail time does
await. It's more of a modification around the edges of the current system
than a relaxation of the laws."

In her attack, Scully portrayed the measure as a danger to alternative
sentencing sanctions that judges already are employing in drug cases.

First-time offenders have the right under the Penal Code to be diverted
into drug treatment. If they reoffend, they can choose to go into drug
court, where their guilty pleas would be dismissed if they complete their
programs. Scully said 302 offenders in Sacramento County opted for drug
court in 1999 and that 96 of them "graduated" from programs. Third offenses
usually result in probation and more treatment - usually with no jail time,
according to Scully, although incarceration is held over the user's head if
they fail the programs.

"All citizens have a healthy respect for the law and know there can be
serious consequences for breaking laws," she said. "Proposition 36 makes a
mockery of our current system of criminal justice for drug abusers."

Fratello countered that drug courts are only reaching five percent of
drug-possession defendants, and that 1998 Department of Justice statistics
show that 37,000 people were incarcerated for possession offenses.

"If they're saying that most people are going to diversion, how can they
explain these numbers produced by the state that show overwhelmingly that
people are going to jail?" Fratello said.

In backing up Scully, Steed, who is a deputy district attorney in the
Sacramento prosecutor's office, called the proposition "dangerous and very
misleading." He called the drug court system already in place "very
successful." He said the initiative would wipe out judicial discretion to
impose sanctions if offenders fail their treatment programs.

Steed's participation drew a charge from Burger, a local civil lawyer who
is opposing him for the vacancy on the Superior Court bench, that he
violated the code of judicial ethics.

Burger cited a paragraph in a pamphlet published by the California Judges
Association Committee on Judicial Ethics that says, "Candidates may not
make statements that commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect
to cases, controversies, or issues that could come before the courts."

"This is one of those," Burger said.

Burger declined to discuss her position on the ballot measure, saying, "I'm
doing my best to abide by the code of judicial ethics."

Steed said his interpretation of the code is that he can discuss "an issue
that has a direct effect on the court." He also said he spoke at the press
conference as a prosecutor and as the president of the Sacramento County
District Attorneys Association.

He was identified in a press release by the No on Proposition 36 campaign
as "judicial candidate Don Steed."