The Impact of Arizona's Mandatory Drug Treatment Law on Prosecutorial Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases

• Author: Vincent J. Webb,Nancy Rodriguez
• Published date: 01 June 2006
• Date: 01 June 2006
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.8.1.2006.1
• Subject Matter: Article

Impact of Arizona’s Drug Treatment Law • 1

* The Impact of Arizona’s Mandatory Drug

  Treatment Law on Prosecutorial Plea 

 Bargaining in Drug Cases

Vincent J. Webb

Sam Houston State University

Nancy Rodriguez

Arizona State University

* Abstract

Passage of mandatory drug treatment laws continues, but research has yet to exam-

ine whether imprisoned low-level offenders (e.g., possession, use, and paraphernalia

offenders) may be the product of negotiated plea arrangements. We examine the

extent to which prosecutors adjust drug offense seriousness through plea bargaining

practices in response to the passage of Arizona’s mandatory drug treatment law. A

sample of incarcerated drug offenders in Arizona was constructed and data were

collected from prosecution and sentencing case les in four counties. Findings show

plea bargaining practices play a signicant role in the classication and imprison-

ment of low-level drug cases. Incarcerated marijuana offenders were not rst- or sec-

ond-time offenders, nor were they treated more harshly than other drug offenders.

Imprisoned low-level offenders have serious and extensive criminal histories, yet the

effect of prior record in plea bargaining outcomes is different pre- and post-manda-

tory drug treatment. Policy implications regarding plea bargaining practices of drug

offenders are discussed.

Preparation of this manuscript was assisted by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation Substance Abuse Policy Research Program.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 8, No. 1

© 2006 Justice Research and Statistics Association

2 • Justice Research and Policy

Impact of Arizona’s Drug Treatment Law • 3

* Introduction

Drug offenders comprise a growing proportion of the nation’s prison popula-

tion (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). From 1990 to 1998, they accounted for

19% of the total increase in the number of state inmates; in 1998, 21% of all

state inmates were imprisoned for drug offenses. In part, the increase could have

been attributable to the 1990s sentencing policies that encouraged or mandated

prison sentences for drug offenders. By the second half of the decade, sentencing

policies were being scrutinized for their contribution to the increasing rate of

drug offender imprisonment, as well as for the potential for creating inequities

in sentencing outcomes, such as racial disparities (Human Rights Watch, 1997;

Sentencing Project, 1998).

The reaction in some states, including California, Arizona, Maryland, and

Kansas, has been to approve ballot initiatives that prohibit the imprisonment

of low-level drug offenders (i.e., possession, use, and paraphernalia offenders)

under specied conditions. “Low level” is dened differently by the states, but

generally the initiatives propose that an arrestee have no present or prior record

of violence or illegal gun possession, no prior prison commitment, and no sig-

nicant role in organized drug manufacture or distribution. These ballot initia-

tives, when enacted into law, divert eligible offenders to sentences of probation

with mandatory community-based drug treatment. Proponents claim the laws

divert nonviolent drug offenders from incarceration that is harsh and inappro-

priate for their low-level offenses. Critics claim that in practice, low-level drug

offenders who receive prison sentences usually have records of more serious

offenses in spite of their low-level status, and prison sentences are appropriate.

Recent studies have examined the impact of mandatory drug treatment laws on

offenders (Farabee, Hser, Anglin, and Huang, 2004; Hser et al., 2003; Long-

shore et al., 2004; Speiglman, Klein, Miller, & Noble, 2003), but to date little

empirical examination has focused on resolving whether or not imprisoned

low-level drug offenders are truly “low-level” threats to the community.

In this study, we examine the process by which low-level drug offenders

become imprisoned. By focusing on the prosecutorial process, we establish how

plea bargaining practices impact the imprisonment of low-level drug offenders.

Specically, we assess how drug offense and prior record help explain increases

or decreases in charges at different points in criminal case processing before and

after implementation of Arizona’s mandatory drug treatment law (Proposition

200). Arizona, the rst state to enact mandatory drug treatment, provides the

ideal setting for such an examination. While similar laws exist in other states,

their recent implementation does not support a pre- and post-implementation

comparison. This study provides empirical evidence on whether imprisonment

of low-level drug offenders in Arizona is warranted, and examines prosecutors’

plea arrangements that lead to the imprisonment of these offenders.