|
| |
The Legislative History of
Deferred Prosecution
Washington State has a proud history of progressive policies in the area
of alcohol and other drug abuse treatment. It was among the first states in the country to
link offenders convicted of Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI) to
community treatment services. Washington’s Alcohol and Other Drug Information School
is considered a model for similar programs adopted in other states. Interlaced throughout
Washington’s criminal laws are linkages to alcohol and other drug treatment services,
reflecting not only this state’s awareness of the destructive role those substance
play in society, but also the importance of treatment and education as an intervention.
Washington’s deferred prosecution policy may possibly be the most progressive example
of that value system, and remains unique as the only treatment intervention program of its
kind in the country.
1975 - The Birth of Deferred Prosecution
- Deferred prosecution was originally designed as a treatment alternative
to incarceration.
- It authorized individuals charged with misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor
offenses to petition the court to have prosecution deferred if they get treatment for an
alcohol, drug, or mental "problem".
- Signed into law by Governor Evans on June 26, 1975.
1982 - Traffic Offense Exception Amendment
- The first major effort to modify deferred prosecution was aimed at
restricting its use for traffic offenses.
- It appears, as deferred prosecution increased in DUI cases, the
legislature felt it necessary to increase the role of the court as gatekeeper
- It compelled the court to exclude deferred prosecution for all traffic
related misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases unless all the eligibility criteria were
satisfied.
- It placed a limit of one traffic-related deferred prosecution every five
years.
1985 - The Revision
- On May 20, 1985, Governor Gardner executed the most significant change
to-date to the deferred prosecution law.
- Many of the changes were made to impact the perceived abuse of deferred
prosecution by individuals not in need of or not committed to treatment.
The foundation for the changes were reflected in the preamble to
the bill, currently reflected as a legislative note in the law.
"The legislature finds that the deferred prosecution program is an
alternative to punishment for persons who will benefit from a treatment program if the
treatment program is provided under circumstances that do not unreasonably endanger public
safety or the traditional goals of the criminal justice system. This alternative to
punishment is dependent for success upon appropriate treatment and the willingness and
ability of the person receiving treatment to cooperate fully with the treatment program.
The legislature finds that some persons have sought deferred prosecution but have been
unable or unwilling to cooperate with treatment requirements and escaped punishment
because of the difficulties in resuming prosecution after significant delay due to the
absence of witnesses at a later date and the congestion in courts at a later date. The
legislature further finds that the deferred prosecution statutes require clarification.
The purpose of sections 4 through 19 of this act is to provide specific standards and
procedures for judges and prosecutors to use in carrying out the original intent of the
deferred prosecution statutes."
- Changed eligibility for deferred prosecution from alcohol/drug
"problem" to "alcoholism and drug addiction" (RCW 10.05.010).
- Required assessment professionals to stipulate to five key "findings
of fact" as to the petitioner's eligibility, as part of the court order (RCW
10.05.040).
- Required petitioners to sign a stipulation as to the admissibility of the
evidence against them (RCW
10.05.020).
- Required treatment providers to sign an agreement to provide the
treatment stipulated in the petition and to meet specific reporting requirements.
- Established detailed minimum treatment components and treatment
requirements (RCW
10.05.150), and clear criteria for reporting any breaches of the treatment plan (RCW
10.05.090).
- Required petitioners to present proof of having completed two years of
treatment as a condition of dismissal of charges.
- Authorized the court to order probation monitoring of deferred
prosecution petitioners.
1990 - Deferred Prosecution Record Maintenance
- Clarified the Department of Licensing’s role maintaining the record
of deferred prosecution.
- Limited the records use to the courts.
- Specified the record does not constitute a conviction for purposes of
licensing.
1991 - Monitoring Fees
- Authorized probation departments to charge petitioners a monitoring fee
for probation supervision.
1991 - Probationary License Status
- Provides for persons granted deferred prosecution to receive a
probationary drivers license, good for five years from the date of issue.
1998 - One Per Lifetime
- Limited eligibility for deferred prosecution to only once in a lifetime,
rather than allowing for renewed eligibility after five years, as had always been the case
(RCW 10.05.010).
|
