Treatment will now take the place of jail time for repeat criminal offenders in Franklin County who suffer from mental illness or drug addiction. The county common pleas court decided Wednesday frequent offenders who have been charged with low-level felonies should have the choice of receiving rehabilitation instead of sentencing. Court officials and police officers will analyze the offender's criminal history and current crime before granting this option. The program will be implemented for criminals committing nuisance crimes - not high-level felonies. Instead of serving their few days in jail, these low-level offenders will actually be given a chance to improve their life with the help of social workers, drug-treatment advisors, and mental-health workers. Jail sentencing alone rarely helps to correct the problem at hand. Many offenders get pushed into the system and then spit back out,
but those who participate in this program will not become just numbers.
The treatment that occurs with Franklin County's new program is critical. It will prevent criminals suffering from illness from chalking up repeat offenses on their record. At the same time, it will help remedy prison overpopulation and uphold public safety. It will improve trust in a system that has decided to take a pro-active stance at curbing crime. These benefits would not cost a thing. The program actually saves over $1,000 in jail costs per person - an amount that adds up for repeat offenders.
Mentally ill people and substance abusers who repeatedly offend the law do so because they do their time and return to communities with the same mentalities with which they went in. Without education, medical attention and job training there would be no reformation of criminals who are incapable of helping themselves. These types of criminals should be given a shot at improving their lives and the lives of their families. Any offender who loses this chance and gets thrown out of Franklin's program will receive punishments including jail time. It is this one time chance, though, that could mean the difference between a repeat offender and a rehabilitated citizen.
If it isn't broke...
What is the point of fixing a problem that does not exist? The number of federal workers who test positive for drugs has fallen to less than 0.5 percent, but the government has proposed costly sweat, saliva and hair sampling be used to screen public workers. Officials in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration say they want to make it tougher for employees to prepare for and elude testing. Had drug use among federal workers increased in the past years, the government may have a reason to increase testing and costs. But the positive rate has fallen from 18 percent in 1986 to 0.5 percent today. And, since there are no indications of major drug testing fraud
or even major drug usage, there is no reason to universally up the standards.
These measures will be used in addition to the traditional urine sampling: While sweat and saliva testing costs only slightly more than urine testing, hair sampling would be more expensive. Tests can cost between $20 and $50, and the money would not come from the company either - it would be paid by taxpayers. Private sectors should have the right to test for every drug in the book by whatever means they find necessary because they would be footing the cost. When the bill goes to Americans, though, the government should rethink its proposal. If urine sampling has worked thus far, there is no urgency to make changes.
The only changes, if any, that must be made in this situation deal with federal workers who have repeatedly tried to defraud drug testing. Employees caught trying to dodge drug testing or avoid detection should have to pass hair, saliva and sweat tests - it is important to secure a drug-free work environment. A more thorough testing standard would be useful for targeting troubled federal employees, but expanding the policies so that everyone could be randomly tested by hair, saliva or sweat only reiterates results found during the urine test.
17 Archives
