THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM ENDING
IN JANUARY OF 2027.
ALSO, AT THE STATE CAPITOL THIS
WEEK, A SENATE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HEARD TESTIMONY ON A BILL THAT
WOULD INCREASE PENALTIES FOR
DRUG OVERDOSES THAT ARE TREATED
AS HOMICIDES, SAYING WISCONSIN'S
CURRENT LAW DOESN'T GO FAR
ENOUGH AT TARGETING SUPPLIERS OF
DRUGS LIKE OPIOIDS LACED WITH
FENTANYL.
BUT SOME EXPERTS SAY WHAT THESE
LAWS SEEK IN THEORY IS NOT WHAT
THEY TARGET IN PRACTICE.
TO LEARN MORE, WE SPEAK WITH
JOHN GROSS, A CLINICAL ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UW LAW
SCHOOL AND DIRECTOR OF THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER PROJECT.
AND PROFESSOR, THANKS VERY MUCH
FOR BEING HERE.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> SO CURRENT STATE LAW MAKES
CAUSING THE DEATH IN AN OVERDOSE
A 40-YEAR MAXIMUM PENALTY.
THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT A
60-YEAR.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT
PROPOSAL OUT OF THE CAPITOL?
>> WELL, MY FIRST REACTION IS
THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S
NECESSARY TO INCREASE THE
PENALTY HERE.
WISCONSIN ACTUALLY HAS VERY HIGH
PENALTIES RELATIVE TO SOME OTHER
STATES FOR VARIOUS FELONY
OFFENSES.
SO MOVING THIS FROM A 40-YEAR
MAXIMUM TO A 60-YEAR MAXIMUM, I
JUST DON'T THINK IT REALLY
ADDRESSES ANY OF THE UNDERLYING
ISSUES.
>> WELL, DOES IT SEEM, GIVEN THE
OPIOID CRISIS, THAT POLICY
MAKERS ARE LOOKING TO USE KIND
OF A TOUGH ON DRUGS HAMMER TO
QUELL IT?
>> I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S THE
KNEE-JERK REACTION HERE, IS TO
SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO APPEAR
TO BE TOUGH ON CRIME BY
INCREASING THE PENALTY, BUT WE
HAVE GOOD DATA THAT SUGGESTS
THAT THIS TYPE OF KNEE-JERK
REACTION THAT JUST MAKE
SOMETHING MORE PUNITIVE,
INCREASE THE PENALTY ON IT, IS
NOT REALLY GOING TO IMPACT WHAT
DECISIONS PEOPLE ARE MAKING.
PARTICULARLY IN THIS AREA WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
HAVE OPIOID ABUSE DISORDERS.
SO, AGAIN, IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO
APPEAR HARSH ON CRIME, BUT IT'S
REALLY IGNORING THE UNDERLYING
ISSUES THAT ARE CAUSING THE
OVERDOSES.
>> SO, AGAIN, YOU DON'T THINK
THAT IT DETERS OVERDOSE DEATHS?
>> NO.
THERE'S EVEN AN ARGUMENT TO SAY
THAT INCREASING THIS TYPE OF
PENALTY COULD CAUSE MORE
OVERDOSE DEATHS, AND THE
SCENARIO I'M IMAGINING IS A
SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE ARE USING
DRUGS, SOMEONE HAS GOTTEN DRUGS,
SHARED THEM WITH SOMEONE ELSE,
AND THAT THE PERSON OVERDOSES,
AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT IN THAT
MOMENT, THEY WOULD SEEK MEDICAL
ATTENTION FOR THE PERSON, BUT IF
THE MESSAGE FROM THE STATE IS IF
YOU HAPPEN TO HAND THE PERSON
THE DRUGS THAT THEY USED AND
THEY ARE KNOW OVERDOSING, YOU
COULD GO TO JAIL FOR 60 YEARS AS
A DISTRIBUTOR OF THE NARCOTIC OR
THE OPIOID?
WELL, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT
NECESSARILY IS GOING TO PREVENT
OVERDOSES.
>> SO IN YOUR MIND, IS THERE A
BETTER WAY?
>> WELL, I THINK IF THE STATE IS
INSERIAL CONCERNED AS WE ALL ARE
ABOUT -- LOWER THE NUMBER OF
OVERDOSE DEATHS, THEY'VE REACHED
A HIGH POINT.
HISTORICALLY WHAT YOU NEED IS TO
REALLY ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING
ISSUES OF ADDICTION.
YOU NEED TO PROVIDE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TREATMENT, AND
YOU NEED TO CREATE, I THINK,
SAFE SPACES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
OVERDOSING TO HAVE OTHERS TRY TO
GET THEM MEDICAL ATTENTION, AND
THIS IS REALLY JUST THE OPPOSITE
OF THAT.
>> WELL, WHEN IT COMES TO
CRIMINAL PENALTIES, SHOULD THERE
BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIND OF
A HIGH LEVEL DEALER SELLING
OPIOIDS LACED WITH FENTANYL AND
THOSE ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS USING
WITH THEIR FRIENDS.
I MEAN, IS THERE A PLACE FOR
THIS KIND OF PENALTY FOR THE,
QUOTE, DEALER?
>> SO IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE
THESE TYPES OF OFFENSES ARE
USUALLY LABELED DRUG INDUCED
HOMICIDES, AND LEGISLATURE
STARTED TO CRIMINALIZE THAT AS A
HOMICIDE BACK IN THE '80s WHEN
WE WERE EXPERIENCING AN UPTICK
IN CRACK COCAINE USE, AND THE
THEORY BEHIND DOING THIS WAS TO
REALLY TARGET PEOPLE WHO WERE
SORT OF DRUG KINGPINS.
RIGHT? TO HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY WERE
DISTRIBUTING DRUGS THAT WERE
KILLING FEMALE AND MAKING A
PROPHET OFF OF IT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY THE
STATUTE IS WRITTEN, IT CREATES
THE POTENTIAL TO CHARGE ANYBODY
WHO DISTRIBUTES OR DELIVERS
DRUGS TO SOMEONE ELSE.
SO THERE ARE INSTANCES THAT --
WHERE WE SEE FRIENDS USING DRUGS
TOGETHER AND ONE PERSON
OVERDOSES AND DIES AND THEN THE
OTHER PERSON IS CHARGED UNDER
THE STATUTE.
SO ON THE FACE OF IT, WE'RE
REALLY JUST HOPING THAT
PROSECUTORS WILL USE THEIR
DISCRETION TO ONLY CHARGE PEOPLE
WHO ARE THE SUPPOSED DRUG
KINGPINS, BUT WE HAVE CASES AND
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE TO SHOW
THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S
HAPPENING.
THEY'RE REALLY TARGETING OTHER
PEOPLE WHO ARE CO-USERS, AND I
THINK THAT'S REALLY PROBLEMATIC.
>> AND YET, WHEN A FAMILY MEMBER
OR CHILD DIES OF AN OVERDOSE,
SHOULDN'T SOMEONE BE HEALTH
CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
>> I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S
CERTAINLY AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE
THAT ANYBODY WHO HELPS PROCURE
OR DISTRIBUTE A DRUG THAT IS
ITSELF ILLEGAL AND DOES LEAD TO
SOMEONE ELSE'S DEATH, THAT THAT
CAN BE CRIMINALIZED.
SHOULD WE BE CRIMINALIZING IT AT
40 YEARS AS A SENTENCE OR 60
YEARS AS A SENTENCE?
I MEAN, I THINK THOSE ARE
EXTREMES AND I THINK, AGAIN, I
THINK THE UNDERLYING ISSUE HERE
IS THE ADDICTION AND THERE'S
OTHER WAYS THAT THE STATE CAN DO
TO HELP REDUCE OPIOID DEATHS AND
OTHER OVERDOSES RATHER THAN THIS
SORT OF PUNITIVE, LET'S JUST
MAKE THE PENALTY LONGER
APPROACH.
>> PROFESSOR AT THE UW LAW
SCHOOL, JOHN GROSS, THANKS VERY