News (Media Awareness Project) - US OH: Judges Ask Drug Court Expansion |
Title: | US OH: Judges Ask Drug Court Expansion |
Published On: | 2000-10-21 |
Source: | Cincinnati Enquirer (OH) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-03 04:52:46 |
JUDGES ASK DRUG COURT EXPANSION
Hamilton County's drug court would more than double in size under a
proposal judges will take to the Ohio Supreme Court next week. The
proposal seeks permission to assign every drug-related felony case to
the drug court, not just the minor drug abuse cases it now handles.
The judges' plan also calls for a second drug court judge to handle
the additional cases.
If the Supreme Court approves the judges' proposal, it would
dramatically expand the drug court's original mission of funneling
non-violent offenders into treatment programs.
Instead of dealing solely with abusers, the expanded court would
handle drug trafficking and other serious drug-related cases.
"The idea is to turn over all of the drug cases," said Judge Robert
Kraft, the presiding judge in Common Pleas Court. "There is the
potential for good results."
Not everyone thinks the proposal is a good idea. Although 10 of the 16
common pleas judges have signed the proposal, some judges have
reservations.
"Until (drug court) is proven to be absolutely necessary, I won't sign
off on it," said Judge Norbert Nadel. "I think without further study,
one drug court is enough."
The cost of expanding the court has not been determined, but Judge
Nadel and a few others say there is no justification right now for any
additional expense.
Judge Deidre Hair presides over the drug court and supports the
court's expansion. Judge Hair is expected to retire at the end of this
year and wants to ensure the court will continue.
She has cited a recent U.S. Justice Department study as proof drug
court works. Since 1996, the study found, 92 percent of the 574
offenders who passed through the court have stayed out of trouble.
But the court's effectiveness will not be the only issue when the
Supreme Court considers the judges' expansion plan.
The most controversial question is whether the drug court should be
allowed to take every drug-related case. Under the Supreme Court's
rules, all criminal cases are supposed to be randomly assigned to judges.
The Supreme Court must agree to waive that rule before drug court can
begin taking all of the drug cases.
Some defense attorneys already oppose the way drug court takes
low-level drug cases. In a recent letter to Judge Hair, the attorneys
complained that their clients would rather skip drug court and take
their chances with other, randomly assigned judges.
Despite the opposition, Hamilton County's plan to expand the drug
court is expected to reach the Supreme Court next week.
If the court approves, a new judge could be appointed to drug court
before the end of the year. Common Pleas Judge David Davis is the most
likely to move into the new position.
Judge Kraft said he hopes an expanded drug court will lighten the
caseloads of other common pleas judges and will help steer more
offenders into treatment programs.
"Everybody's looking for ways to keep people out of jail," Judge Kraft
said. "We want to deal with the drug problem in a positive way."
Hamilton County's drug court would more than double in size under a
proposal judges will take to the Ohio Supreme Court next week. The
proposal seeks permission to assign every drug-related felony case to
the drug court, not just the minor drug abuse cases it now handles.
The judges' plan also calls for a second drug court judge to handle
the additional cases.
If the Supreme Court approves the judges' proposal, it would
dramatically expand the drug court's original mission of funneling
non-violent offenders into treatment programs.
Instead of dealing solely with abusers, the expanded court would
handle drug trafficking and other serious drug-related cases.
"The idea is to turn over all of the drug cases," said Judge Robert
Kraft, the presiding judge in Common Pleas Court. "There is the
potential for good results."
Not everyone thinks the proposal is a good idea. Although 10 of the 16
common pleas judges have signed the proposal, some judges have
reservations.
"Until (drug court) is proven to be absolutely necessary, I won't sign
off on it," said Judge Norbert Nadel. "I think without further study,
one drug court is enough."
The cost of expanding the court has not been determined, but Judge
Nadel and a few others say there is no justification right now for any
additional expense.
Judge Deidre Hair presides over the drug court and supports the
court's expansion. Judge Hair is expected to retire at the end of this
year and wants to ensure the court will continue.
She has cited a recent U.S. Justice Department study as proof drug
court works. Since 1996, the study found, 92 percent of the 574
offenders who passed through the court have stayed out of trouble.
But the court's effectiveness will not be the only issue when the
Supreme Court considers the judges' expansion plan.
The most controversial question is whether the drug court should be
allowed to take every drug-related case. Under the Supreme Court's
rules, all criminal cases are supposed to be randomly assigned to judges.
The Supreme Court must agree to waive that rule before drug court can
begin taking all of the drug cases.
Some defense attorneys already oppose the way drug court takes
low-level drug cases. In a recent letter to Judge Hair, the attorneys
complained that their clients would rather skip drug court and take
their chances with other, randomly assigned judges.
Despite the opposition, Hamilton County's plan to expand the drug
court is expected to reach the Supreme Court next week.
If the court approves, a new judge could be appointed to drug court
before the end of the year. Common Pleas Judge David Davis is the most
likely to move into the new position.
Judge Kraft said he hopes an expanded drug court will lighten the
caseloads of other common pleas judges and will help steer more
offenders into treatment programs.
"Everybody's looking for ways to keep people out of jail," Judge Kraft
said. "We want to deal with the drug problem in a positive way."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...