Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in contested races address leading up to the Nov. 5. election.
Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to residents across Johnson County.
Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question. Read the candidates’ responses to the previous question about staffing and officer-involved shootings.
Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:
The Johnson County District Attorney’s office currently runs diversion programs for both adult and juvenile offenders meant to give people who have committed relatively minor crimes an alternative to incarceration. As District Attorney, what will be your approach towards offering defendants an opportunity at diversion? Do you think the current programs offered are adequate or would you like to see them tweaked or expanded in any way?
Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on the issue:
Steve Howe (Republican, incumbent)
The Johnson County District Attorney’s office has the most robust diversion program in the entire region. It provides opportunities for those with no or little criminal record on low level offenses.
In the adult system we have a regular diversion program, mental health diversion, veterans’ treatment court diversion and a 6-month diversion plan for marijuana possession cases. The juvenile system has an extensive list of programs. They include youth court, MIP program, pre-file diversion and file diversion. Over 50% of juvenile cases receive some form of diversion.
My office is a leader in diversion programs, which is why many other jurisdictions reach out to us for help in developing their programs.
Vanessa Riebli (Democratic)
I fully support diversion programs as they offer a “second chance” to applicants who commit lower level crimes. I believe the current eligibility policies should be reviewed to expand access to applicants, especially those who are facing substance abuse and mental health issues. For instance, an applicant is not eligible for diversion if they have more than one case pending in district court or have pending charges in municipal court. It is not uncommon for individuals struggling with substance abuse or mental health issues to commit an additional low level crime within a short duration of a prior arrest, thus more discretion needs to be allowed within the policy to grant diversion in these situations.
Further, the current policy for adult diversion prohibits eligibility pursuant to the “5/10 rule” which means applicants will not be eligible for diversion if they have a misdemeanor diversion or conviction within 5 years of the new offense or a felony conviction or diversion within the last 10 years of the new offense. The policy should be modified to allow for more discretion based upon the nature of the crime, victim input, special circumstances as related to the applicant, and with consideration for community safety.
All fees related to the diversion program should also be reviewed to see if they can be reduced or waived pursuant to statute. Currently they can be a major barrier to entry for some individuals. The fees should also be eligible for payment plans and monthly payments versus the current policy of requiring full payment prior to signing the diversion program.
Coming up:
Tomorrow we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:
There have been several high-profile cases in recent years of drug overdose deaths, particularly those of teenagers, ending in criminal prosecutions of those who supplied the victims with the drugs. There have also been a string of prominent cases involving drug deals involving juvenile offenders that ended in violence. Under your watch, what will be the DA office’s approach to targeting and prosecuting crimes involving drugs?
