Law Blog

Methamphetamines have become the most commonly abused drug in California according to LegalMatch.com case statistics.  Since 2005, 55% of LegalMatch customers seeking drug defense attorneys in California have been accused of possessing or distributing methamphetamines.  Marijuana only makes up 26%, and Cocaine 10%.  These statistics match 2007 stats released by the California Attorney General showing that “dangerous drugs” (methamphetamines and barbiturates) made up 49.5% of all arrests in the state.

There has been a lot of talk recently about the legalization of drugs as a means of saving tax dollars and cracking down on crime. At last week’s “Internet Town Hall,” President Obama was asked whether he thought legalizing marijuana could help improve the economy and create jobs. He responded with a blunt “no” while the audience laughed and applauded the President’s ability to be the same as everyone else.

Of course, no one is seriously considering legalizing meth as a means of dealing with the problem of methamphetamine abuse. But could legalizing other drugs such as marijuana help law enforcement and drug treatment professionals concentrate on this more dangerous drug? After all, statistics (and health concerns) prove it is clearly California’s biggest drug problem.

I have previously opined on the likelihood of marijuana legalization saving us billions of dollars, but what about this other possible side benefit? California Judges, Probation Officers, and Diversion Programs will similarly be able to concentrate more of their efforts on dealing with the startling fact that 50% of drug charges in California now deal with methamphetamines. By freeing up resources to better treat meth abusers and reduce recidivism and future abuse, we may also reduce incarceration rates and save the state even more money.

In a sense, legalization of one drug could have a domino effect on our state’s treatment of other, more serious drugs. Perhaps if President Obama had decided to answer a more serious question, we may have gotten something more than derisive laughter.

With so many controversial propositions on the ballot in California’s November election, it was easy to overlook Proposition 9, also known as the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008 or Marsy’s Law.  Prop 9 was passed by just over 50% of voters, despite wide opposition from many groups, including the ACLU, the Democrat Party, the teacher and firefighter unions, all major state newspapers, and even the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office. 

Opponents take issue with many of Pro 9’s provisions.  First, by requiring prosecutors to notify crime victims’ families at each stage of proceedings, it may create huge new public liability.  Specifically, under Prop 9, the District Attorney and sometimes judges must seek victims’ opinions prior to deciding which charges to file, whether or not to let a defendant post bail, which plea agreements the prosecution may accept, and what probation conditions to impose. 

Prop 9 allows crime victims’ families, who are often (understandably) filled with a desire for vengeance, to impact a system that strives to be impartial.  Should these biased individuals who usually lack a firm knowledge of police, court, and prison procedure really be allowed to exert such a strong influence on the criminal justice system?  Prop 9 may also cause the District Attorney to more vigorously pursue those cases involving the most tenacious families, leaving victims with less vocal or connected families to endure a lesser standard of justice.

Additionally, Prop 9 may be a waste of time – and money.  First, some say it merely reiterates laws already in place.  For example, judges regularly slap victims’ attackers with restraining orders.  And California already passed a “Victims Bill of Rights Act,” which guarantees people the right to notification of and the right to present at sentencing and parole hearings; the Act also orders offenders to pay victims restitution.  Moreover, opponents claim that the California Supreme Court will likely strike down Prop 9 because it fundamentally overhauls the prosecutor’s role within the criminal justice system by making the D.A. represent crime victims rather than the state.  By doing so, Prop 9 could muddy criminal prosecutions by converting victims into independent parties who can oppose sentences and refuse to comply with defense attorneys’ requests. 

Finally, implementing Prop 9 is simply not feasible during this time of financial crisis.  Not only is California’s budget strained, the state prison system is in crises.  Recently, the feds ordered California to spend $8 billion to fix its ailing prison medical facilities to conform to federal standards.  By imposing tougher parole eligibility requirements and severely limiting early releases while California prisons are at 200% capacity, Prop 9 just doesn’t make sense.

While Prop 9 was enacted with good intentions, California cannot afford to implement a measure which will ultimately fail to serve its intended purpose while unfairly burdening an already over-stressed budget.

Recently, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger revealed that the state needs over $8 billion in spending cuts and additional taxes.  Further, California owes millions to the state prison system, which must make significant improvements to its medical system in order to comply with constitutional standards.  This news comes as a slap in the face to many Californians who are suffering through a dire economic crisis and voted against Proposition 5, a ballot measure which would have allocated money to improve mental health services for prisoners.

In 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco took control of the California prison medical system after reports indicated severe neglect and incompetence caused about one inmate to die per week.  In order to fix the system, however, money will need to be taken from vital services such as schools, the university, or the police department. 

So far, California has refused to show Judge Henderson the money.  I think California Attorney General Jerry Brown is wise in refusing to turn over more funds to a bureaucracy that has failed to make progress despite spending even more for healthcare than outside healthcare operators.  Brown has asked state and prison officials to draw up specific construction plans which only implement the minimum-needed improvements.  However, the state Legislature has twice rejected bonds which would cover the cost of drafting such plans.   

Although the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted California a temporary reprieve, eventually the state will need to pay up.  And if Schwarzenegger and State Controller John Chiang are found in contempt, they could face harsh fines-possibly $2 million per day-until they surrender the money.  Hopefully officials can work together to make efficient plans for improvement before even more taxpayer dollars are wasted.

I know we still have a few months left in 2008, but I was curious: which U.S. States have the most divorces?  We all have hunches on which states are the most likely to grant a divorce, but I wanted facts.  So I dug deep into the LegalMatch database, and came out with more than a few surprises.

First off, over 50% of all divorces on LegalMatch are posted in the top 10 states.  52% to be exact, meaning the remaining 40 states (plus the outlying territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc., and pseudo states like the District of Columbia) together account for 48% of the divorces on LegalMatch in 2008.  This is surprising, because LegalMatch has cases and attorneys throughout the U.S. 

Why so many divorces in the top 10 U.S. states?  Population has to be a big factor: the bigger the state, the more divorces will happen.  Since LegalMatch is an online matching service, the results may also skew towards Net savvy states.  And what about social pressures?  Some states seem to take divorce more seriously than others, applying negative stigmas, and creating extra legal hurdles for couples to jump through before they can go their separate ways. 

Enough jabber – the divorce totals, please. 

Coming in at #10 through #6, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, and Illinois all tied with 4% each of all divorce filing on LegalMatch in 2008.  That’s a pretty good smattering of states from different parts of the country – no clear trend there. 

North Carolina and New York shared the #5 and #4 spots with 5% each of LegalMatch 2008 divorce filings.  North Carolina… really? 

Florida came in at #3 with 6% of 2008 divorce filings on LegalMatch.  I would have guessed top 3.  It’s nice to be right every so often.

And now what I consider the biggest surprise: California came in at #2, with 8% of all divorce filings on LegalMatch in 2008.   I would have pegged California as number 1, since some celebrity marriages get annulled before the best man’s speech is over. 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess, if you really want to leave your spouse), the #1 distinction rests with… TEXAS.  In 2008, Texas accounted for 10% of all of LegalMatch’s divorce filings.  The Lone Star state is apparently also the Lone Spouse state.