The November 6th election, with all its national implications, is fast approaching. Ohio Issue 1, a proposed state constitutional amendment to reduce drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, is frequently used as a barometer of sorts amid ongoing coverage of state campaign races. The barrage of 30-second campaign ads are hyperbolic at best, and some feature fear tactics to persuade a no vote on Issue 1. What follows is my practice at a more reasoned case against the issue with hopes you come to the conclusion that Ohio Issue 1 hurts Clermont County and other local governments more than it helps.
What follows is my practice at a more reasoned case against the issue.
On its surface, Issue 1 has its merits. Given that the United States is the world leader in incarceration, 5 states have already passed similar legislation aimed at reforming the current criminal justice system. Ohio Issue 1 intends to reduce the state’s incarceration rate by reclassifying penalties for drug offenses such as possession, purchasing, and the use of illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia from a felony to a misdemeanor. The resulting reduction of over 50,000 prisoners would generate savings to the state. Money saved would go back into the system for addiction treatment and rehabilitation services as well as crime victim funds.The initiative places additional value on treatment by incentivizing prisoners that participate in rehabilitation services with a potential 25% sentence reduction.The reclassification would not apply to drug trafficking offenses, preventing drug dealers from dodging hard time.
Ohio Issue 1 misses the mark on two interrelated key points.
For all the big concepts of saving money and improving public safety, the ballot initiative over-simplifies the nuances of the criminal justice system and disregards the true state of addiction services within local governments. Ohio Issue 1 misses the mark on two interrelated key points: Access to money and access to treatment.
The amendment would immediately reduce the prison population. First, by granting prisoners with previous applicable felony convictions the right to appeal for a reduced sentence. Secondly by prohibiting jail or prison time for the same offenses, provided it is not the offenders third time in 24 months. Only 15 percent of inmates in state prisons across the United States are incarcerated for drug offenses. A sentence reduction of the approximately 7,500 eligible prisoners in Ohio would be a limited, one-time savings
Ohio Issue 1 places an undue burden on local governments to process repeat offenders up to three times before sentencing them to jail.
Not all of Ohio’s counties and municipalities have the same needs; but many face similar problems of overcrowded jails and ever-tightening budget crunches. And while inaccurate to say Ohio Issue 1 decriminalizes drugs, it certainly won’t deter people from buying and using drugs, which if the initiative passes, would shift sole responsibility of processing drug offenders to local governments. Ohio Issue 1 places an undue burden on local governments to process repeat offenders up to three times before sentencing them to jail.
Issue 1 is a major threat to the progress that has been made by county governments and agencies to address the opioid crisis in Ohio. Drug courts, which mandate treatment as an alternative to prison, are among the most effective methods of rehabilitation for addicts, many of whom would otherwise not seek treatment on their own. Issue 1 removes that authority from the judicial system and puts vulnerable offenders back in harm’s way. The treatment funding mechanism proposed by Ohio Issue 1 is not well-defined and could be distributed through grants. This complicates local government’s ability to allocate funds year-over-year and create stable infrastructure for addiction treatment programs and services.
In recent years national and state politics have been more cognizant of the opioid crisis, but the most significant positive impacts are made through collaboration between local government agencies and law enforcement. Effective programs such as quick-response teams and recovery coaches could be on the chopping block when local law enforcement and jails absorb more of the state’s cost.
Andy Bateman is a resident of Loveland, Ohio and serves as a member of the Clermont County Mental Health and Recovery Board.
As complex as Ohio Issue 1 is, it is understandable that the easier argument against it is to say that it normalizes drug use and puts dangerous criminals out on the streets. In my opinion it is more interesting to evaluate it in practical terms. One major concern with Ohio Issue 1 is, as a constitutional amendment, it does not pertain to an individual’s rights or freedoms and would be more difficult to repeal once approved.
One major concern with Ohio Issue 1 is that it is a constitutional amendment.
The choice is ours on November 6th. Please take the time to read for yourself the full language of the Statewide Issue. My intent is to vote against it and I urge others to do the same.
If you are concerned about neighborhood safety, then you should NOT support Issue One on the ballot this fall. It will hinder law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges in their ability to deal with the biggest drug crisis in this state’s history.As a result, it will result in more drugs on the streets, more crime, more deaths from overdoses, and more costs to local communities and taxpayers.
Jerry R. McBride is a Clermont County, Ohio, Common Pleas Court Judge
Judges have the ability to comment on issues that affect the administration of justice. Issue One will have a devastating effect on the administration of justice on Ohio. As one trial judge, this is my take on Issue One:
ISSUE ONE DOES NOT BELONG IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION
A state constitution should set forth the powers and functions of the branches of government, certain general values and principles upon which the citizens of the state generally agree, and the basic rights which are afforded to the citizens of the state. It should set forth matters which are so fundamental and important that they will not be subject to change over time. This proposed constitutional amendment does not in any way belong in a state constitution. It seeks to change sentencing law as it exists in the state of Ohio based on an assumption that change needs to be made. If change does need to be made, then it should be made through the process of enacting legislation, as is done on a regular basis in this state, and not through a constitutional amendment.
ISSUE ONE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH IN SENTENCING AND IGNORES THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS.
There should be truth in sentencing, not lip service to truth in sentencing. Issue One allows a credit to be given by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for participation in rehabilitative, work, or educational programming of up to 25% of a sentence plus 30 days. While this may sound good at first glance, it is contrary to the concept of truth in sentencing. When a victim is told what a sentence will be, he/she should be able to rely on that being the sentence unless a hearing is scheduled on a possible reduction in the sentence. Why should a sentence be reduced just because an inmate “participates” in programming? Isn’t that the bare minimum that should be expected from an inmate? Why should an inmate be rewarded for doing the bare minimum? If a sentence is to be reduced, it should be reduced by the sentencing judge based upon an assessment that the risk of recidivism has been reduced, not because somebody has shown up to work. And if the judge makes the assessment that the sentence should be reduced, a hearing will be required and the victim will have an opportunity to be present and to be heard, which is the way it should be. Additionally, what does it mean to “participate” in these activities? This essentially allows the prison authorities to reduce a judge’s sentence,and it should be the judge who imposed a sentence who determines whether that sentence should be reduced.
ISSUE ONE IS DANGEROUS IN THAT IT INTERFERES WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM’S ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THE DRUG CRISIS
It is highly inappropriate in the midst of the biggest crisis in this state in terms of drug abuse for the possession and use of dangerous drugs to be treated essentially the same as minor traffic and criminal offenses. Possession of dangerous drugs leads to overdoses, to more serious criminal offenses, to deaths. The possession and use of dangerous drugs are not minor offenses to the persons who are addicted to drugs, to the victims of crime involving persons under the influence of drugs, to the parents and family members who are praying that their loved ones will not overdose and die. To suggest that we need to include treatment in our approach to this drug crisis is highly appropriate, and in fact it is already being done routinely across this state. However, to suggest that we should reduce the level of these offenses so that they are no longer classified as serious offenses is highly inappropriate.
ISSUE ONE TREATS USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AS LESS SERIOUS THAN JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER CRIME
The proponents of the constitutional amendment, in saying that a jail sentence cannot be imposed, are saying that possession and use of such drugs as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine should be treated more lightly than reckless driving, shoplifting, lying to a police officer, gambling, and persistent disorderly conduct, all of which can result in the imposition of jail sentences. Is this really the message that we should be sending to drug addicted adults who represent a risk of committing more serious offenses as long as they persist in the use of dangerous drugs?
ISSUE ONE ELIMINATES THE ABILITY OF A JUDGE TO IMPOSE A JAIL SENTECE FOR A FIRST OR SECOND POSSESSION OFFENSE, EVEN IF THE DRUG IS HEROIN, METHAMPHETAMINE, OR COCAINE
In all likelihood, probation will be appropriate for a person who commits a drug possession offense which is the first or second within a 24-month period. However, that will not always be the case. For instance, probation may not be appropriate at all if the offense is committed at the same time as a more serious offense such as a burglary or an assault. Similarly, probation may not serve the purpose of protecting the public if the drug possession or use offense is committed by a convicted sex offender for whom use of a dangerous drug or alcohol represents a significant risk of reoffending and for whom intermediate sanctions may provide no real protection to the community. As for the term probation, does that include treatment in a halfway house or in a lock-down community based correctional facility?
If it doesn’t include residential treatment, including lockdown residential treatment, ittakes away some of the most effective tools which can be used in trying to rehabilitate an offender. Needless to say, the problem with creating an absolute standard that requires that a person who uses or possesses drugs receive the lowest level of sanction available is that applying that standard under the facts of given case may not be consistent with the seriousness of the offense or the likelihood of recidivism.
ISSUE ONE PUTS HANDCUFFS ON JUDGES IN THEIR ABILITY TO GET OFFENDERS TO STOP USING DRUGS
The proposed amendment would eliminate the possibility of imposing a jail sentence at all for a violator on a first or second drug possession or use offense within 24 months and would eliminate the possibility of a court imposing a prison sentence for a felony violator unless the violator commits a new criminal offense. However, this leads to some very real dilemmas. If that is to be the law, what is a court to do with someone who simply refuses to attend treatment or to comply with any of the intermediate sanctions or who simply says that he/she will not comply with anything that the court orders? What is a court to do with someone who says he/she will comply with community control sanctions but then refuses to do anything which is ordered? Under the language of the proposed constitutional amendment, a felony offender could simply tell a judge at the time of the sentencing hearing that he/she will comply with the community control sanctions that are ordered, and then after being placed on community control, refuse to do anything that the court orders. At that point, a prison sentence could not be imposed. What is the possible sense in that? How does that serve to protect the public? The probation department has a statutory duty to report violations to the court, but if the offender continually absconds or fails to comply with the sanctions that are ordered, how can the probation department perform that function? The answer is very simple- it can’t.
ISSUE ONE JUST GIVES LIP SERVICE TO THE CONCEPT OF GRADUATED SANCTIONS
Issue One strips away the full range of tools which enable a judge or probation department to be effective in not only rehabilitating an offender, but also in protecting the public. It is difficult to argue with the concept of graduated responses, and the use of intermediate sanctions, by courts and probation departments. It is consistent with the use of evidence-based practices. However, the application of graduated responses or intermediate sanctions to a violator in a given case will depend on the seriousness of the original offense, the risk of recidivism, and the nature of the violation. In this regard, a graduated response policy will typically include probation (monitored or with conditions), intermediate sanctions (which may include such things as house arrest, residential or outpatient treatment, day reporting, a short jail term, or other requirements), and jail or prison. Issue One, however, arbitrarily takes away the option of jail or prison even for someone who thumbs his or her nose at the system and who refuses to undergo treatment or to make other changes that are necessary to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. It also arbitrarily takes away the option of jail or prison for someone for whom lesser sanctions are simply not appropriate.
ISSUE ONE CONTRADICTS THE IMPORTANT CONCEPT OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
The proposed amendment provides that each court must prepare guidelines for graduated responses that may be imposed in sentencing offenders and that the guidelines must be approved by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, which is part of the executive branch. Such a provision, which is proposed to be part of the state constitution, violates an already existing constitutional principle, which is the separation of powers. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has any expertise in deciding what factors a court should consider in determining which graduated response should be applied in a given case in sentencing an individual. That is pure and simple a judicial function.
UNDER ISSUE ONE, THERE WILL BE LESS, NOT MORE, MONEY FOR TREATMENT
The proponents of this constitutional amendment assume that the costs of their proposal will be covered by a substantial reduction in the number of prison beds. However, since the cost of housing fourth and fifth degree felons in the prison system is a very small part of the overall prison cost, since the projections as to cost reductions by the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections have been inaccurate in the past, and since the increase in prison population has primarily resulted from longer sentences, and that is not addressed at all by the constitutional amendment, there is no real reason to believe that the assumptions of the proponents in this regard are correct.
ISSUE ONE WILL RESULT IN GREATER COSTS TO LOCAL COMMUNTIES WITH WORSE RESULTS
In the unlikely possibility that the proponents of Issue One are correct that there will be more money for treatment, and that appears to be fool’s gold, the most significant costs of this proposed constitutional amendment are the following- it undermines the efforts being made by courts and the law enforcement community to deal with the drug crisis, it undermines the ability of courts to effectively sentence offenders, and worst of all, it will not make the public any safer at all, and given the problems identified above, will likely lead to the public being more at risk. The cost of the proponents of Issue One pursuing their ill-conceived political agenda will be to put more people at risk of being victims, will not result in more or better treatment for drug users, and will result in greater cost- both human and monetary- to local communities. That is the reason that law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges throughout Ohio are opposing Issue One as being both ill-conceived and dangerous.
Relaxed atmosphere and friendly service welcomes you back time and time again! Located in the heart of the Historic Loveland District Just outside Cincinnati, Ohio.
Cassie Mattia lives in Historic Downtown Loveland, Ohio.
If we don’t protect our youth who will? In May, Ohio Paul Zeltwanger and Thomas Brinkman proposed House Bill 658, which states:
“If a government agent or entity has knowledge that a child under its care or supervision has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner opposite of the child’s biological sex, the government agent or entity with knowledge of that circumstance shall immediately notify, in writing, each of the child’s parents and the child’s guardian or custodian. The notice shall describe the total circumstances with reasonable specificity.”
gen·der dys·pho·ri·a
ˈjendər disˈfôrēə/
noun
MEDICINE
The condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex. How to pronounce gender dysphoria.
In plainer language House Bill 658, also known as the “Parent’s Rights Bill,” would make any school administrator or teacher who allows or offers gender dysphoria (the condition of feeling one’s emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one’s biological sex) treatment, including resources on sex and gender or counseling, for a minor “without the written, informed consent of each of the child’s parents and the child’s guardian or custodian” they could be charged with a felony in the fourth degree. The parents of the student according to the bill would get the ultimate decision whether their child gets access to treatment, including educational materials, counseling or medical services.
If this House Bill is implemented it could have detrimental consequences for teachers and even more importantly for those students affected. Teachers are there to lend their students a helping hand educationally and emotionally in order to prepare them for what’s to come once they are out on their own, why take this from them?
A teacher’s take on House Bill 658
I spoke to one Loveland teacher who wishes to remain anonymous, a mom of a teenager. I’ll call her Susan. She told me that for many students their home life is a wreck and out of control with issues of poverty, broken families, and domestic abuse. “For many of my students, the only adult in their life that can be trusted may be their teacher. Teachers who lend an ear and can be trusted can be an enormous help that often reflects on their academic achievement. We care for the whole child.”
Susan told me that for many students their home life is a wreck and out of control with issues of poverty, broken families, and domestic abuse. “For many of my students, the only adult in their life that can be trusted may be their teacher.”
Susan told me that she just overheard a conversation between her daughter and a friend about a classmate they thought was transgender. “I wondered, do they know what that means? Are they friends with this young person? How do my kid and others treat her? Because I am a teacher, would I be required to file a report with the District? These are all questions that ran through my head as a mom and a teacher.”
Susan said she wants to protect and support all of her kids, her biological ones and the ones that are “her’s” for a school year. “I want to be able to do that freely and openly and with my heart.” She said that some of her students desperately need someone they can trust in their life and the last thing they need is another person that will let them down because politicians want school staff charged as felons if they don’t report that the student herself, or a classroom teacher, principal, gym teacher, bus driver, or classmate may be questioning her gender identity.
Susan asked, “Just what stereotypes am I going to be expected to police?
HB 658 is a harmful bill that takes aim at some of our most vulnerable — transgender youth — by forcing school officials to serve as ‘gender police’ and out them or risk getting a felony.” – Alana Jochum
LGBTQ advocacy
“HB 658 is a harmful bill that takes aim at some of our most vulnerable — transgender youth — by forcing school officials to serve as ‘gender police’ and out them or risk getting a felony,” said Alana Jochum, executive director of LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Ohio. Jochum told NBC News. “This exposes young people to discrimination, harassment, and bullying.”
Jochum couldn’t be more correct if you really take a look at the alarming statistics. One study done by the Cincinnati Enquirer showed that 64% of LGBTQ youth in Ohio heard “negative comments” about their gender identity or sexual orientation from their family and in result, according to another study done by National Transgender Discrimination, 41% attempted suicide. Though many transgender students
75% of transgender youth have felt unsafe at school after being outed and have lower GPA’s due to missing school in fear of their safety.
have experienced negative comments, violence has become the most popular form of dealing with transgender youth. Disturbingly enough 19% of transgender youth, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality, experience the majority of violent abuse in their home from their own family members. Along with dealing with all the dissension from family members 75% of transgender youth, according to a national survey done by GLSEN (pronounced “glisten”), have felt unsafe at school after being outed and in result have lower GPA’s due to missing school in fear of their safety. With all the facts at hand, The Ohio Education Association who represents 125,000 teachers and support professionals, have openly opposed the bill.
Violence has become the most popular form of dealing with transgender youth.
Kathryn Lorenz is the Loveland Board of Education Vice President
While researching House Bill 658 I managed to only get a response from two local representatives of the Loveland School Board, one being Kathryn Lorenz, the Board Vice President and the other being Loveland School Board Member, Ned Portune. Lorenz’s response was, “In the case of House bill 658, we would have to say that we do not yet have enough information, nor have we met as a board for a few weeks, so we do not yet have a Board statement to make.”
Ned Portune is a member of the Loveland School Board
Portune added that he, “…simply has not been fully informed at this point on HB 658 to have an educated opinion. There are several items in your statement that would certainly give me a gut reaction, and opinion on, if true as presented. But I need time to fully review the Bill, its implications and existing laws to have any formal statement.”
School Superintendent Amy Crouse, High School Principal Peggy Johnson, and assistant principals at the High School did not respond.
Studies show most transgender youth are fully aware of their gender identity by age 4.
After attempting several times to contact both Representatives Paul Zeltwanger and Thomas Brinkman through email and phone about House Bill 658, I, unfortunately, got no response. It wasn’t hard to find Brinkman’s opinion on the issue in several other publications though, voicing to WCPO, “Parents have the right to decide what is best for their children,” and telling WOSU Public Media, “And if somebody doesn’t like it, you’re emancipated at age 18 and you can go do whatever the heck you want.” Seems pretty harsh considering the transgender population represents about 0.3% (700,000) of Americans and studies show most transgender youth are fully aware of their gender identity by age 4. Are we encouraging parents and administrators to discard their students or child’s gender identity in fear of social rejection? Do these children not deserve to live an authentic life?
Fran Hendrick, PCC has offices at Wildflower House in the West Loveland Historic District.
House Bill 658 is expected to be presented to the Ohio General Assembly in the Fall and will be without a doubt one of the most controversial bills to date. Many have opinions on this issue one being Fran Hendrick, a respected and highly educated clinical counselor who specializes in assisting women and girls who are experiencing depression or anxiety triggered by a crisis or major life change. When I presented Fran with House Bill 658 and asked what her opinion was she had a lot to say and rightfully so considering one of her life missions, according to Fran’s website franhendrick.com, is to “gently help you find and shelter your spark (the essence of who you are at your core) and grow it so that it illuminates your person and is radiated through words, actions and decisions, big and small, that make up your daily life.”
In a culture such as ours, it is a matter of life and death for transgender youth to decide if and when to trust another person with their reality. – Fran Hendrick, PCC
“Being a parent takes great courage, even more so when your child presents you with something that you’re unfamiliar with – or even afraid of. In a perfect world, a child who feels somehow ‘different’ from their peers (‘their’ is deliberately gender-neutral), they could consult their parents, who would strive to deeply understand the child’s experience, would provide accurate empathy, and would go on a crash course to learn everything they could about the unfamiliar issue. And, so very fortunate for their children, there are many parents like these.
But in the real world, an adolescent boy saying to his father, ‘Dad, I think I’m a girl’ is very likely to encounter disgust, rejection, rage, or even violence, not empathy and understanding.
While the intent of this bill, giving benefit to grave doubt, could be a deeply uninformed and misguided attempt to protect children, that seems unlikely. My sense is that in truth it is more about attempting to hand parents the power to say no to their child’s gender identity,” Hendrick said, “But gender identity – and sexual orientation, for that matter – are not matters of choice. And in a culture where transgender people are assaulted and even murdered at a rate higher than their cisgender counterparts,where transgender youth are summarily shunned and rejected by their own parents (the rate of homelessness is, not surprisingly, very high), where the suicide rate that results from these atrocious facts is far higher than for other youth – in a culture such as ours, it is a matter of life and death for transgender youth to decide if and when to trust another person with their reality, and, most importantly, whom to trust.
To be “outed” for the choice to trust; or to be prosecuted for trying to be help – these are not protections. Actions like these support bigotry, and increase isolation and despair. – Fran Hendrick, PCC
To be “outed” for the choice to trust; or to be prosecuted for trying to be help – these are not protections. Actions like these support bigotry, and increase isolation and despair. Stopping a teacher from helping such a student, one who is likely alone with the reality of their gender identity, who stands to be emotionally and psychologically rejected, or even physically abused, by their own family is, quite simply, a cruelty. This, I strongly believe, is not what the overwhelming majority of parents want for their own or anyone else’s children. This is bad enough. However, this bill opens the door to much more far-reaching damage than this.”
Is he to be turned in to the gender police?
The talented young male artist who despises sports – is he to be turned in to the gender police? The girl who chooses overalls and a t-shirt rather than a dress and a mani-pedi –what of her? The sponsors of the bill have explicitly said that teachers should be required to inform on them, as well. We have an essential responsibility to ensure that proposed legislation protects vulnerable people from the bigotry endemic in our society.This legislation explicitly deprives them of protection.”
Ultimately what it comes down to is ensuring that our children are and feel safe when going to school. Teachers and administrators are the ones that take on the responsibility of creating that fun, loving and supportive atmosphere so that our children get the best opportunities in life. Passing a bill such as House Bill 658 only presents another obstacle that both teachers and administrators have to overcome. Don’t these professionals have enough obstacles to conquer as is?
Both Justin Haake and Tonya Schaeffer who are Professional Clinical Counselors for Hope Restored Counseling Services in Loveland couldn’t agree more.
Justin Haake is a Licensed Professional Counselor at Hope Restored Counseling Services in Loveland and works primarily with adolescents and adults, specifically during transitional periods in life.
Haake said, “For some, teachers and school administrators may be the only people in schools that feel safe for students to reach out to.Imagine the fear of asking for support, knowing that you’ll either be outed or put the teacher or administrator at risk of a felony.”
Schaeffer said, “From my perspective, this would most likely increase the level of bullying and possible harm to these students.There is already so much shame and stigma attached with Transgender people, and they need as much support as they can get,”
Tonya Schaeffer is a Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor and co-owner of Hope Restored Counseling Services in Loveland.
Schaeffer added, “Support is out there.In fact, we are offering a psycho-educational group starting in September that offers education, support and a safe environment for Transgender students to express themselves.” She said they hope to offer a similar group to parents who are trying to understand what their child is going through, explore what the parents are experiencing and provide support. “We currently serve the LGBTQ community, and we are expanding those services.I recently read a statement that it is estimated that 41% of trans men and women have attempted suicide. I don’t believe this bill would help–it seems like it could only hurt.”
Susan, the mom and teacher said, “I am thankful I live in a community where support services like those provided by Hope Restored, and Fran Hendrick at Wildflower House are nearby for my students and their families.”
Transgender youth have so many mountains to climb within their own scientific makeup and allowing a bill like House Bill 658 to go through in hindsight is taking away their basic rights as Americans and human beings.
“GLSEN (pronounced “glisten”) was founded in 1990 by a small, but dedicated group of teachers in Massachusetts who came together to improve an education system that too frequently allows its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQ) students to be bullied, discriminated against, or fall through the cracks.”
by Andrew Bateman,
If you would like to explore the topic of Transgender youth and adults even further please check out “
