DRUG COURTS CAN REVERSE HEARTBREAK OF DRUG ABUSE, ADDICTION

Judge Morris Hoffman alleged that drug courts don't work and that they
entrap addicts in the criminal justice system ("Drug courts don't
work," Opposing view, Crime and punishment debate, Oct. 21).

I ask him to judge the evidence impartially: In 2005, the Government
Accountability Office concluded from dozens of studies that drug
courts reduce crime.

Since then, no less than five independent scientific teams have
concluded from "meta-analyses" (a rigorous statistical tool) that
drug courts reduce crime, save money for taxpayers and avoid
victimization.

The Urban Institute, an independent think tank in Washington,
concluded that drug courts reap $2 to $3 in benefits for every $1 invested.

And no evidence is offered to support the indictment that drug courts
"net-widen" to entrap addicts.

As a judge with more than 26 years of experience, I have presided over
countless cases exhibiting the devastating impact of drug abuse and
addiction. I have also witnessed firsthand the success of drug courts
in reversing this heartbreak.

It is evidenced by more than 1,500 graduates who stood before me
committed to re-enter their communities as productive citizens.

Hundreds of my judicial colleagues have witnessed this same scene, and
I know many agree that this is the most rewarding part of our jobs.

Combining treatment, accountability and due process together under the
drug-court umbrella affords non-violent, addicted offenders a chance
at redemption.

The proof is evidenced in its replication across hundreds of
jurisdictions, support from state legislatures and Supreme Courts, and
endorsement by the Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State
Court Administrators, National District Attorneys Association, White
House Office of National Drug Control Policy and many others.

Louis J. Presenza, president judge

Philadelphia Municipal Court

Philadelphia