Is letting criminals reduce their own sentences (thus bypassing parole boards) a good idea? Notice that the proposed law states that the ONLY exceptions to a reduction of sentencing are for those convicted of murder, rape, child molestation, and those on death row or with life sentences. It says nothing at all about prisoners convicted of other violent crimes.

That means those convicted of any other felonies can now reduce their sentences, just like the drug offenders … and get out of jail. Isn’t that just wonderful? Now, what other kinds of felonies are there? Let’s see, there’s aggravated assault, attempted murder, felonious assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated menacing, kidnapping (won’t all the human traffickers love this?), extortion, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, voyeurism, prostitution, stalking, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, identity theft, domestic violence, arson… I could go on and on.

Everyone convicted of these crimes would be eligible to get their sentences reduced to misdemeanors, and judges could do nothing about it.

Imagine for a moment someone selling fentanyl. This, of course, is part of the opioid epidemic, killing people left and right. A drug bust in Nebraska recently found 118 pounds of fentanyl — enough to kill 26 million people. Another bust in New York City (200 pounds of fentanyl) had enough of the opioid to kill 32 million people.

Currently in Ohio, if you possess 20 grams of fentanyl, you are labeled a drug trafficker and sentenced accordingly. Under this new “progressive” law, someone who possesses 19 grams of fentanyl (enough to kill 10,000 people) would not be considered a drug trafficker. Police would only be able to slap the seller on the wrist and give him or her the equivalent of a parking ticket.

What a wonderful message that will send to all the drug traffickers (and accompanying human traffickers) around the world: Come to Ohio, sell your most deadly drugs, and all you’ll get is a slap on the wrist!

If Issue 1 passes in Ohio, the state constitution will mandate that these types of dangerous criminals will have the opportunity to get all their sentences reduced to a misdemeanor. And there is nothing a state judge or the state legislator or the governor can do about it. This amendment would tie the hands of judges and prosecutors. The chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O’Connor, warned that Issue 1 “will have catastrophic consequences for our state.” Paul Pfeifer, former Ohio Supreme Court justice, said that Issue 1 is a “horrible idea.”

Many attorneys defending the criminals will love this proposed law, but do we really want our courts tied up even more with a flood of dangerous criminals using a new law to reduce their sentences to misdemeanors? Do we really want a poorly-worded six-page document added as an amendment to the Ohio Constitution? Isn’t changing drug laws the role of state legislators? Isn’t the Ohio Revised Code the place for any new laws about illegal drugs, so that if the law turns out to be a bad one or is unworkable, the legislature can change it? If it is in the constitution, however, the legislature won’t have that option. It could only be repealed by a new amendment.

Everyone convicted of these crimes would be eligible to get their sentences reduced to misdemeanors, and judges could do nothing about it.

Imagine for a moment someone selling fentanyl. This, of course, is part of the opioid epidemic, killing people left and right. A drug bust in Nebraska recently found 118 pounds of fentanyl — enough to kill 26 million people. Another bust in New York City (200 pounds of fentanyl) had enough of the opioid to kill 32 million people.

Currently in Ohio, if you possess 20 grams of fentanyl, you are labeled a drug trafficker and sentenced accordingly. Under this new “progressive” law, someone who possesses 19 grams of fentanyl (enough to kill 10,000 people) would not be considered a drug trafficker. Police would only be able to slap the seller on the wrist and give him or her the equivalent of a parking ticket.

What a wonderful message that will send to all the drug traffickers (and accompanying human traffickers) around the world: Come to Ohio, sell your most deadly drugs, and all you’ll get is a slap on the wrist!

If Issue 1 passes in Ohio, the state constitution will mandate that these types of dangerous criminals will have the opportunity to get all their sentences reduced to a misdemeanor. And there is nothing a state judge or the state legislator or the governor can do about it. This amendment would tie the hands of judges and prosecutors. The chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, Maureen O’Connor, warned that Issue 1 “will have catastrophic consequences for our state.” Paul Pfeifer, former Ohio Supreme Court justice, said that Issue 1 is a “horrible idea.”

Many attorneys defending the criminals will love this proposed law, but do we really want our courts tied up even more with a flood of dangerous criminals using a new law to reduce their sentences to misdemeanors? Do we really want a poorly-worded six-page document added as an amendment to the Ohio Constitution? Isn’t changing drug laws the role of state legislators? Isn’t the Ohio Revised Code the place for any new laws about illegal drugs, so that if the law turns out to be a bad one or is unworkable, the legislature can change it? If it is in the constitution, however, the legislature won’t have that option. It could only be repealed by a new amendment.