JUDGING THE DRUG COURTS

Therapeutic justice has become a hot phrase in the nation’s criminal courts.
It is based on the concept that judges can change behavior by offering an
alternative to criminal proceedings in an adversarial courtroom setting .

The most widespread application of the idea is in the drug courts. About 600
of these facilities have been started in the United States since 1989, with
10 in Michigan. They offer nonviolent defendants who plead guilty the option
of intensive alcohol and drug treatment instead of prison time. If they come
through the program successfully, the guilty plea is withdrawn.

Earlier this month, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approved
$30,000 in state grants to plan drug courts in several more jurisdictions,
including Novi, Troy and Waterford. They are being sold on the basis of
effectiveness, both in terms of salvaging lives and cost. But there is some
reason to be skeptical on both counts.

Judicial intervention to alter a damaging pattern of behavior is always a
tricky business. Some jurisdictions, including Kalamazoo County, which has
three drug courts, do report an impressively low rate of repeat offenders.
Since they are only four years old, however, it is difficult to assess their
effectiveness over the long term.

Critics point out that a criminal who doesn’t use drugs can end up with a
more severe sentence than an addict, which appears to be a dangerous
anomaly. Other programs, notably in Iowa, also report far more success with
white defendants than with minorities in the program.

The question of cost effectiveness is also open. Drug courts are not a cheap
solution. Until now, most courts have been funded by federal grants. But
they are of limited duration, usually three to four years. When Kalamazoo’s
drug court for men ran out of funds last September, it had to turn to the
state for a $400,000 grant to continue.

According to the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, “some are questioning
whether the state can be a permanent source of funding for drug courts.” As
other such courts lose their federal funding, the state’s role, inevitably,
will have to expand even more.

The version of the drug court funding bill that has passed the Michigan
House only provides for three years of state matching funds. Local sources
would have to pick up half of the cost within that time, and all of it over
the long term.

Drug court advocates argue, however, that the savings in prison, prosecution
and trial costs make such funding affordable.

On the preliminary evidence, there is probable cause for moving ahead,
cautiously, with drug courts. But as the most effective way of dealing with
drug-related crime, the best that can be said is that the jury is still out.

The Issue

Are drug courts that offer substance abuse treatment rather than prison time
a more effective way of dealing with drug-related criminals?