OUR SAY: COUNTY OFFICIALS RIGHT: TREATING DRUG OFFENDERS IS VITAL

WE CONSIDER ourselves strong advocates of the first-lock-up-the-crooks
approach to criminal justice. But we have to admit that one type of offender
may need treatment just as much as punishment.

We're talking, of course, about drug offenders. About 22 percent of the 818
inmates at the county's two detention centers are serving sentences or
awaiting trial on drug charges. But an estimated 78 percent -- more than
three-quarters! -- of county jail inmates are classified as having a serious
substance abuse problem.

It makes little sense to have people serve their time, and then return to
the community with an addiction that will draw them back to association with
criminals, and then to crime.

So we were pleased to report recently that county officials have been
putting more money into treatment programs, and court officials are
continuing to push the Drug Court program in District Court.

Statistical backing for such local programs may be sparse so far, but
national studies indicate that they reduce crime rates and save tax dollars.

The Star Program, run by the county Health Department in cooperation with
the detention center, provides drug treatment to up to 40 inmates every six
weeks. In a study conducted last year, the county criminal justice
coordinator found that of 100 Star Program graduates, 17 were re-arrested
within six months of release -- as compared to 38 re-arrested among a
similar group of inmates who didn't go through the program.

The findings led County Executive Janet Owens to add money to the program so
it will expand to 60 slots every six weeks -- not as many as it could serve,
perhaps, but an improvement.

Meanwhile, about $80,000 in county, state and federal grant money will go to
study the effectiveness of the county's three-year-old Drug Court program in
District Court. This program allows drug offenders who are willing to plead
guilty to get treatment -- without jail time. The State's Attorney's Office
puts the recidivism rate for participants at 10 percent, but a more detailed
analysis is needed -- if nothing else, to look for ways to fine-tune the
program.

Don't get us wrong: We don't think such programs are a replacement for
punishment of people who commit serious crimes when they are under the
influence of drugs or are trying to get money to feed a habit.

But we haven't got enough jail cells to lock up all the people guilty of
minor drug offenses -- and once people are in jail, it makes no sense for
the system to resign itself to eventually putting them back on the streets
with their drug habits intact.

These programs aren't an answer to the drug problems of our larger society,
but they make sense in theory, and we hope it can be demonstrated that they
work in practice. And by "work," we don't mean "work miracles." These
programs can more than pay for themselves if they make a modest dent in the
recidivism rates -- for not only is crime costly, but there's no cheap way
to incarcerate someone.