DRUG COURTS REDUCE RECIDIVISM, U.S. EXPERT SAYS

Coerced Treatment Works If Accompanied By A Home, Job And A Life With Purpose

Karen Freeman-Wilson, CEO of the U.S. National Association of Drug
Professionals, CEO of the Drug Court Institute, ex-public defender,
former prosecutor turned judge and self-described "professional
vagabond," was on the video linkup from Washington, D.C.

Her message was unequivocal: Specialized drug courts are part of the
solution to petty crime, urban disorder and addiction.

Tough laws against illicit drug producers and traffickers are
useless, she said, unless you also tackle demand.

Drug courts are a way of reducing demand, Freeman-Wilson said, and
are "one of the most effective" methods of addressing the crystal
meth epidemic.

She maintained these courts reduce recidivism among drug users by
between four and 35 per cent, depending on the jurisdiction.

Canadian policymakers, politicians, civil servants, media, police,
chamber of commerce types, health professionals and others
participating in the video-conference call took note in Ottawa,
Halifax, Winnipeg, Calgary, Victoria and Vancouver.

Pioneered in Florida as a way of dealing with the cocaine-fuelled
crime spree of the late 1980s and early 1990s, drug courts have been
established across the U.S. and around the globe. We're experimenting
with them here -- in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver.

The specialized courts are tailored to each bailiwick and its
specific needs -- for instance, some are devoted only to drunk
drivers, others to aboriginal offenders, providing native healing and
wellness programs, and some are even designed for families.

The idea is to augment the two central options -- conditional release
or prison -- available to the legal system when an offender's crime
is primarily motivated by addiction.

Drug courts provide qualified addicts accused of non-violent offences
with broad social support, guidance and intensive scrutiny -- for
example, weekly appearances before the judge and drug-screening tests
two to three times a week.

"Rapport between the judge and the offender is essential," Freeman-Wilson said.

For completing this program -- which takes about a year or two and
includes finding a job, having a home, and staying off drugs -- an
offender is spared prison, the charge does not appear on his or her
record (except in drunk driving cases) and he or she receives a
second chance, as it were.

While everything Freeman-Wilson said about drug courts is undoubtedly
true, don't expect to see them outside of a very few specific areas.
I do not think governments can afford politically or financially to
fund them so they are widely accessible.

Taxpayers are not about to provide this kind of Cadillac safety net
for people who break into cars, shoplift and commit other offences
that make life miserable and more expensive for the rest of us.

The savings from not incarcerating addicted petty criminals, from not
putting their children in foster care and from the reduction in crime
are too ethereal, in my opinion, to sway the debate.

Look at the facts: U.S. federal funding for the drug courts program,
Freeman-Wilson said, has been roughly $40 million a year.

Hello! That's less than the global marketing budget for The Da Vinci
Code movie.

Perhaps a better comparison yet -- it's even less than the stingy
B.C. Liberals provide annually in legal aid!

This year, the Bush administration cut funding to $10 million,
Freeman-Wilson said, but promised $68 million next year.

Don't hold your breath, I say.

State and local governments must pick up the slack in America, and
only a minority do -- 20 out of 50 states have institutionalized
funding; in the rest, it's ad hoc.

Similarly, and given the current Republican-tilt in Ottawa, I don't
think Canada is about to embrace drug courts as the solution to urban
blight, either.

It's unpopular and it's just too expensive to provide this array of
social services and specialized support for recovering addicts so
they can obtain housing, jobs and mental stability.

I'm told that in Toronto, for instance, some people who opted into
the program can't graduate from it because there is no affordable
housing and there are no jobs available for them.

Earnestness and good intentions can't change that.

Meanwhile, drug courts are creating the impression that enforced
treatment is a viable option. Freeman-Wilson said it baldly: "Coerced
treatment works."

That's not the story, in my view.

Coerced treatment works if accompanied by safe housing, a job and a
life with purpose.

For me, the experience of these courts underscores that: What works
is an expensive, holistic approach that provides broad and extensive
social services to criminally recidivist addicts.

The Harper government is trumpeting a more popular answer -- hire
more cops and build more prisons.