The following article was posted as submitted by Logan Beeman, a Bucyrus resident.
Several articles have been published by local newspapers in the last few weeks addressing Issue 1: a proposed state constitutional amendment which aims to reduce incarceration of low-level, nonviolent 4th and 5th degree drug possession felonies and redirect the savings towards drug rehabilitation programs. Unfortunately, many articles have been written by employees of a court system directly tied to — and indeed benefiting from — over-incarceration of drug crimes in the county. More unfortunately, claims about Issue 1 have gone completely unchallenged or even fact-checked by local media, resulting in misconceptions and lies running amok throughout the citizenry. In this article, I will analyze the arguments made and debunk misconceptions, not so that you, the reader, will vote yes on Issue 1, but so that your vote may be more informed.
Common Pleas Judge Sean Leuthold said in Crawford County Now, “some people have cited this [Issue 1] only applies to fourth and fifth degree felonies, but depending on how it is interpreted could include all levels of drug-possession felonies.” This is an egregious claim because taking a moment to look at the ballot language reveals this is not true. The initiative rather clearly states it cannot, “apply to offenses for the sale, distribution, or trafficking of drugs, nor to any offense that was not classified as a first, second, or third degree felony.” In my view, there are two reasons a lifelong attorney and sitting judge would make that claim: either he hasn’t read Issue 1, and is therefore ignorant, or he has read it and believes we are ignorant and will take his word for it instead of thinking for ourselves.
Crawford County Assistant Staff Attorney Michael Bear expressed concern regarding convicted fourth and fifth degree felons’ ability to appeal for a reduced sentence in the event of Issue 1 passing, stating crime will increase if convicts are released early. However, if prison is the end-all solution for drug addiction, offenders are to be released in the near future, unrehabilitated, regardless. What is it Mr. Bear is so worried about? Summarily, one cannot simultaneously believe incarceration is the best way to combat nonviolent drug crimes while also shirking concern for what unrehabilitated offenders will do upon release. His position is short-sighted and ignores genuine betterment of addiction and of the community.
Prosecutor Matthew Crall and Bear have both made the argument violence is inherent in drug-offense based on many cases of drug-related theft and prostitution. While undoubtedly true addiction is capable of driving criminal acts, this does not invalidate the possibility of non-violent drug-offense especially when taken together with the individual and the nature of the substance. Importantly, arguing for reduced drug-crime penalty is not arguing offenses such as theft and prostitution should be any less criminal. The image of a violent-offender Bear and Crall have meticulously crafted should not be indiscriminately applied. We are a nation of individuals, not of lowest-common denominator collectives determined by government officials. If we are to have faith in each other and our future, we cannot universally presume the worst of those that need us most.
Bear and Leuthold paint the same picture, as if collusion were not apparent, of a 20 year-old holding fentanyl in one hand and a beer in the other and facing a six month stint for the beer, but not the drugs. This is meant to invoke the conclusion penalization for drug-offense should not be reduced. Yet, in the highly unlikely circumstance a first-time offending 20 year-old would be sentenced to anything more than probation for having a beer, the idea he could be sentenced to six-months for a beer more highlights the absurdity already present within the law than suggests it is absurd to reduce the penalty for non-violent drug-offense and attempt to rehabilitate addicts. Should we fix all bad laws with worse laws or aim higher?
By stating child molestation is not a crime officially listed on the ballot, Crall implies convicted child molesters would be eligible for reduced sentencing under the proposed amendment. Again, let us return to the ballot measure and decide for ourselves. Issue 1 explicitly states nothing, “shall be construed as applying to, changing, or affecting laws or sentencing for the incarceration of individuals convicted of murder, rape, or child molestation.” Crall appears to have intentionally misled the public unless we are to doubt his fitness as prosecutor.
The United States of America, land of the free, incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other country. While we are a proud home to 4.4% of the Earth’s population, we house over 22% of her prisoners. Leuthold, Crall, and Bear have conspired to breed public fear around Issue 1 in service of re-election. Instead, let us view it with courage and a promise of faith in our community. Let us not belittle the people we love,but elevate and lead them in a spirit of self-determination and responsibility. The answer is not a cell-block and recidivism, but wisdom and strength.
Problems do not disappear because they are hidden and lives should not be treated as political leverage.