THE DRUG COURT'S FUTURE

Hamilton County Judge Deidra Hair, who founded the state's first drug court
in 1995, retired from the bench this week. She leaves an impressive legacy.

The concept of a specialized drug court, which focuses on treating
criminals with addictions rather than punishing them with jail time, was
revolutionary when Judge Hair pioneered it.

But her ideas proved sound. The treatment and intense supervision the court
provides have helped hundreds of drug addicts give up lives of crime. The
program has helped relieve jail crowding and saved the county money.

Dozens of counties across the state and around the country have used the
Hamilton County program as a model.

Given that success, one would expect county officials would be anxious to
continue and expand the use of this approach to dealing with drug addiction
and crime. After all, some research shows that more than 80 percent of
criminals have drug or alcohol problems. Helping people overcome those
addictions has real potential to reduce the number of crimes in our community.

Unfortunately, judicial squabbling and turf battles have cast doubt on the
future of the drug court in Hamilton County.

Judge Hair's colleagues complain - off the record - that she wielded too
much power and didn't carry her share of the county's judicial load. The
latter complaint is a bit specious: any specialized court, by definition,
limits its docket to certain types of cases.

Criticism that Judge Hair was too lenient with those who violated their
probation by doing drugs while in treatment seems more legitimate, but her
practice of frequently extending probation rather than sending violators to
jail was in keeping with a philosophy that addiction is an illness.

Some Common Pleas judges, however, didn't see it that way. They have
blocked her plans for adding a second drug court to handle a wider range of
cases - even though the proposal has support from Ohio Supreme Court Chief
Justice Thomas Moyer.

Meantime, the selection process for naming Judge Hair's successor is
continuing. But given the grumbling by the barons of the Courthouse, it's
likely the next drug court judge will have a more difficult task.

Such attitudes are unfortunate, especially if they threaten the judicial
philosophy of treatment-over-punishment for addicts that drug courts embrace.

Rehabilitation of addicts doesn't always work. But it's a much more
effective approach than jail time. During Judge Hair's tenure, more than
700 drug addicts successfully completed a treatment program.

Some tweaking of the drug court may be appropriate with this change of
leadership.

But we hope Hamilton County judges will make it their mission to build upon
the success that Judge Hair started, rather than looking for ways to
disassemble the legacy she leaves.