MAKING THE CASE FOR HANDS-ON COURTS
Judges Are Learning That A Problem-solving Approach Can Stop The
Cycles Of Drug Use And Dysfunction

When I graduated from law school back in 1962, becoming a judge was
the farthest thing from my mind. Not that the idea wasn't appealing. I
was intrigued by the intellectual challenges that the job posed as
well as the opportunity to "do justice" and make a difference in
people's lives. It's just that the obstacles were daunting, especially
for a woman. Still, I could dream, couldn't I?

Fast-forward to 1999. For the past six years I have served as New
York's chief judge. As head of a branch of government with more than
15,000 employees and 4 million new cases a year, I've seen firsthand
what it takes to keep the wheels of justice turning. I have also seen
that, overwhelmingly, the New York courts discharge their heavy
responsibility with great care, working diligently to achieve the goal
of equal justice under law.

But I'm not writing this essay to hand out congratulations. I'm
writing because that dream of 1962 doesn't quite line up with the
reality of 1999. "Doing justice," I find, is a lot tougher than my
textbooks ever suggested.

Let's face facts: many of the cases in state courts today are not
complicated legal matters. But they do involve people with complicated
lives. If you take a trip to criminal court or family court, you'll be
reminded more of "M*A*S*H" than of "Perry Mason." Judges grapple with
dockets driven by drug abuse, domestic violence and family
dysfunction. These are new issues for the courts, and yet judicial
responses tend to be firmly rooted in the past.

Not surprisingly, in many of today's cases, the traditional approach
yields unsatisfying results. The addict arrested for drug dealing is
adjudicated, does time, then goes right back to dealing on the street.
The battered wife obtains a protective order, goes home and is beaten
again. Every legal right of the litigants is protected, all procedures
followed, yet we aren't making a dent in the underlying problem. Not
good for the parties involved. Not good for the community. Not good
for the courts.

The volume of our dockets demands efficient management. But processing
more cases more quickly isn't the whole answer. We also need to take a
step back and ask, "Is there a better way to do this?" In fact, across
the country, some judges are starting to rethink business as usual.

Here in New York we now have 15 drug courts that direct nonviolent
defendants to strictly supervised drug treatment instead of prison,
halting the revolving door of drugs-crime-jail. We're also testing
that model in family court to stop the devastating cycle of
drugs-child neglect-foster care. We're developing "community courts"
that seek to restore distressed New York neighborhoods by making
low-level, nonviolent offenders pay for their deeds by removing
graffiti and cleaning streets. And half a dozen domestic-violence
courts put immediate emphasis on victim safety and defendant
accountability.

In these new courts, judges are active participants in a
problem-solving process. In the drug courts, judges oversee defendants
in drug treatment -- cheering them when they achieve sobriety and
sanctioning them (perhaps with a weekend jail stay) if they fall back
a step.

What's so different about this approach? First is the court's belief
that we can and should play a role in trying to solve the problems
that are fueling our caseloads. Second is the belief that outcomes --
not just process and precedents -- matter. Protecting the rights of an
addicted mother is important. So is protecting her children and
getting her off drugs.

Third is the recognition that courts' coercive powers can change
people's behavior. We know, for example, that a defendant in
court-ordered drug treatment is twice as likely to complete the
program as someone who gets help voluntarily. Finally, we've learned
that courts can't carry out this problem-solving role alone.
Collaborations with government agencies and community groups are essential.

Do problem-solving courts raise new questions about the roles of
judges and attorneys? You bet. But anyone who doubts the potential of
this approach needs to attend a family-treatment-court graduation, as
I did recently. There were a lot of happy tears -- including mine --
as eight formerly addicted mothers were reunited in record time with
their kids who had been in foster care.

Some may argue that such hands-on involvement clashes with our
branch's traditional dignity and reserve. But what's the alternative?
The flood of cases shows no sign of letting up. We can either bail
faster or look for new ways to stem the tide.

With a problem-solving attitude, we can make a real difference in the
lives of litigants and in the communities in which we all live. And in
the end, that comes pretty close to the dream that drew so many of us
to the law, and to judicial service, in the first place.