DRUG COURT OFFERS AFFORDABLE, PROMISING SOLUTION

TO THE POINT

After 20 years of mandatory minimum sentences, are drugs, drug abuse and
crime more or less prevalent? Are we safer?

Who said the following: "I can accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom
of federal mandatory minimum sentences. In too many cases, mandatory minimum
sentences are unwise and unjust.

"Consider this case: A young man with no previous serious offense is stopped
on the George Washington Memorial Parkway near Washington, D.C., by United
States Park Police. He is stopped for not wearing a seat belt. A search of
the car follows and leads to the discovery of just over 5 grams of crack
cocaine in the trunk. The young man is indicted in federal court. He faces a
mandatory minimum sentence of five years. If he had taken an exit and left
the federal road, his sentence likely would have been measured in terms of
months, not years."

A. Longtime leading liberal Sen. Ted Kennedy

B. The president of the American Civil Liberties Union

C. Defense attorney Johnny Cochran

D. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

For those of you who guessed D, congratulations. Kennedy is a moderate
conservative, a supporter of the death penalty and "three strikes" life
sentences. He is just one of the growing chorus of voices -- liberal and
conservative -- calling for the repeal of the federal mandatory minimum
sentences. What unites these disparate voices is the realization that
mandatory minimum sentences are unfair, unjust and simply don't work.
Filling our prisons with non-violent drug offenders has been a national
failure and embarrassment.

The issue of mandatory minimum sentences is important for all Americans.
Everyone is concerned about finding effective ways to combat crime. But
overly harsh and unjust sentences run counter to our democratic ideals of
fairness and justice. As the world's largest jailer, we must pause and
consider if our current policies really are effective. Our national inmate
population is approximately 2.1 million. In California alone, the combined
state and federal prisoner population is over 160,000, more than the entire
population of Guam. The United States has an incarceration rate eight times
higher than most European countries. Does this work? Are our communities any
safer?

Another disturbing reality looms over this debate -- race. Nationally, more
than 40 percent of the prison population consists of African-American
inmates. About 10 percent of African-American men in their mid to late 20s
are behind bars. In some of our cities, more than 50 percent of young
African-American men are under the supervision of the criminal justice
system. The sad fact is that people of color bear the brunt of our current
repressive sentencing system.

Despite the plethora of contrary evidence, the federal government, through
the Department of Justice, still proclaims that harsh and arbitrary policies
like mandatory minimums are the solution to our drug and crime problems.
However, their continuing financial support for alternative solutions in the
various state court systems demonstrates that even they have lost faith in
their failed policies.

The states and territories often are laboratories for successful innovations
in public policy. Guam is no exception. Our Superior Court's Juvenile and
Adult Drug Courts, although new on island, hold promise as cost-effective,
smart alternatives. The drug court is given the responsibility to monitor
drug-using offenders through comprehensive supervision, drug testing,
treatment services and immediate sanctions and incentives. Its mission is to
hold criminals accountable for their behavior, to decrease criminal activity
related to drug and alcohol abuse, and successfully rehabilitate through
immediate, continuous and intensive supervision. Nationally, drug-court
statistics show that the average recidivism rate for drug-court graduates is
between 4 percent and 29 percent, compared to 48 percent for non-drug-court
graduates.

So who is financing and promoting drug courts nationally? The federal
government usually provides the seed money and assistance to fund the
start-up of drug courts nationally. It is clear that even the federal
government does not believe its own rhetoric about mandatory minimums. As
President Bush has said, "Drug courts are an effective and cost-efficient
way to help non-violent drug offenders commit to a rigorous drug-treatment
program in lieu of prison."

There is a simple way to gauge the success of mandatory minimum sentences.
Mandatory minimum sentences have been around for almost 20 years. Are drugs,
drug abuse and crime more or less prevalent now than 20 years ago? Are our
communities safer now than they were 20 years ago?

The sad and inescapable reality is that mandatory minimums do not work.
Mandatory minimums are doomed to failure, as they do not address the root
causes of much of our crime and substance abuse problems. Reasonable,
cost-effective, common-sense and workable solutions like Guam's own drug
court must be explored. The time is now to abandon the failed experiment of
mandatory minimums.

John T. Gorman is the federal public defender for Guam.