BREAKING THE CYCLE OF DRUGS AND CRIME

A group of Ottawa judges and lawyers say a proposed drug treatment court
would help treat the addictions that prompt petty criminals to reoffend,
clogging the justice system. Jake Rupert explains.

Drug addicts committing petty crimes to support their diseases stuff the
justice system to overflowing. Some are at Ottawa's Elgin Street courthouse
so often judges are on a first-name basis with them.

The current system isn't working and the solution is not clear. The cycle
of jail term, release, re-offence, jail awaiting sentence and jail term
again is unending for many.

But a group of Ottawa judges and lawyers hopes a proposed specialized drug
treatment court may help break the cycle of abuse and recidivism, at least
for some.

"It's an obvious problem," said Ottawa Justice Judith Beaman, who along
with Justice Peter Wright is spearheading a proposal for federal government
funding to create a court specifically designed to deal with addicts. "The
idea is to deal with the underlying drug addiction and, hopefully, these
people will stop committing crimes."

The judges are asking the National Crime Prevention Centre for $500,000 to
$600,000 for the program's inaugural year. The centre administers the Crime
Prevention Investment Fund, which is designed to finance innovative
programs to lower crime rates across the country.

The centre has already given more than $3 million over four years to
similar programs in Toronto and Vancouver, but has yet to approve the
Ottawa proposal. If successful, the programs can end up saving the justice
system a lot of money.

Addicts charged with crimes eat up a huge amount of resources, even though
their crimes are relatively minor. Most are held in jail awaiting their
sentences because they've breached bail conditions too often in the past
and, on sentencing, many get jail time because their records are pages long.

The cycle continues daily in bail court and guilty-plea court. The
submissions by Crown and defence lawyers are almost always the same. No
job. No permanent place to stay. No families to take ownership of them.
Addicted to crack cocaine or some other drug. No hope, really.

The sentences are almost always the same too. Thirty days for a bicycle
theft. Ninety days for stealing meat. Sixty days for trying to cash a
phoney cheque. Six months for breaking into cars.

In guilty-plea court, roughly half of every day is taken up by people with
substance-abuse problems. And they keep coming back because the drug
addiction is stronger than the threat of jail. The costs include court time
and resources, the time police spend dealing with these people and the more
than $50,000 it costs to jail a person for a year in Ontario.

"Over and over again, we hear the same submission: 'He did this because he
has a drug addiction. She did this because she's addicted to that,'" Judge
Beaman said. "It's obvious that the underlying problem with many offenders
is an addiction.

"The idea of this court is to deal with the underlying problem so they
won't continue to commit crimes to support the drug habit and to help them
to become productive members of society."

The proposal was put together by the two judges, defence lawyer Bob
Selkirk, provincial Crown attorney Hilary McCormack, federal Crown attorney
Eugene Williams, duty counsel, drug-treatment specialists, social workers,
the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies, outreach workers and others.

Officials with the federal crime-prevention centre say they are examining
the proposal.

"At this stage, it's under review," said Justice department spokesman
Patrick Charette. "It's hard to say when a decision will be made."

The centre has already provided $1.6 million over four years for a drug
court in Toronto and $1.7 million over four years in Vancouver. (The B.C.
government also contributed $1.7 million over four years to Vancouver's
drug court.) Researchers are gathering data in both courts to measure their
success.

The programs in Toronto and Vancouver are limited to people charged with
drug offences.

Ottawa's program would go further, by accepting drug addicts charged with a
range of other offences. It would be the first such program to accept
youths as well as adults.

"Whether its a drug offence or an offence committed to get money for drugs,
it doesn't make a difference to us. It's still the same root problem," said
Mr. Selkirk.

Ottawa's program would use both the carrot and the stick.

Under the plan, a designated Crown attorney will screen all files looking
for candidates for the program. These people must be drug dependent,
non-violent offenders charged with thefts, frauds, prostitution-related
offences, possession of stolen property, mischief or drug possession
charges that would generally warrant sentences of less than nine months in
jail.

Defence lawyers or duty counsel with clients who fit the criteria could
also recommend clients to the program.

In exchange for not going to jail, the offenders must agree to take
responsibility for their crimes and to abide by all conditions of the
program. If they get kicked out, the normal court procedures would restart
and they would be jailed.

They would then be broken into two groups: people whose sentences would be
less than three months and those whose sentences would be between three and
nine months.

People in the first group would appear in front of Judge Wright or Judge
Beaman in a special court and agree to follow all terms for a year. The
conditions would include showing up at court twice weekly, taking daily
group and individual drug treatment counselling at Rideauwood Addiction and
Family Services, continual urinalysis to prove they are drug-free, and any
other counselling or programs suggested.

There are also programs to help addicts get into proper housing if needed,
and educational, parenting, and life-skills programming available as needed.

If an accused in the first group successfully completes the program, the
charges against him or her are withdrawn.

People in the second group are required to plead guilty to their crimes,
but before sentencing, they're released on bail conditions to follow the
program. If they successfully complete the program, they will be sentenced
to probation instead of jail.

Members of either group could be kicked out of the program for a variety of
reasons, including repeated failed urine tests, failure to attend court or
counselling sessions or failing to live at an acceptable address.

Because relapses and difficulties are to be expected when people are trying
to quit drugs, some breaches of conditions will be accepted in the program,
but only to a point. There is no hard rule on the number of slip-ups an
accused can get away with, because each person's case will be different and
will be dealt with that way. One thing is certain: People will be kicked
out if they commit further crimes while in the program.

Under the proposal, up to about 80 people could be accommodated by the program.

Critics of such programs say they are bound to fail. They cite studies
saying the chance of somebody getting off drugs is much better if the
addict enters a program voluntarily.

Judge Beaman and others involved in the proposal know the criticism, but
point to research from similar U.S. courts and interim data collected from
the Toronto court as indications these programs work.

The latest figures show that after two years of the program's existence, 14
per cent of the 284 accused who entered the program completed it, meaning
32 addicts stayed out of jail for at least a year. Sixty-seven per cent of
those who entered were expelled from the program. Seventeen per cent of the
people who entered were still in the program at the time of the study.

The figures show 63 per cent of those expelled from the program re-offended
after being kicked out, while 14 per cent of those who graduated reoffended
- -- none of whom committed an offence involving drugs.

The early results are far too small a sample to be definitive, but in this
type of addiction research a success rate higher than 10 per cent is
considered good.

"I think we all have a certain amount of pride in the things we do," Judge
Wright said. "But after a while, you have to step back and say what we're
doing with these people isn't working. Any kind of success rate would be
better than what we're achieving with these people now."

Ms. McCormack is also looking forward to having a drug court, because in
her years of prosecuting it's become clear regular procedures have little
effect on some of these people.

"Some of these people we see all the time. They are chronic, low-level
offenders who hurt themselves more than they hurt other people. Some are
genuinely motivated to break their addictions, but it's not easy. They just
need more support.

"Hopefully at the end of the program, for some, they will have beaten their
addiction, be able to function, and they won't be back before the courts again."