CLOSING OF DRUG COURTS DUE SECOND LOOK

Along with state spending reductions required by a weak economy comes a lot
of second-guessing. It centers on whether cutbacks deemed necessary in the
short term will do harm and ultimately be more costly to Connecticut
residents over time.

That can be a frustrating exercise, both for state officials doing what
they think they must to reduce spending and for others who see some
economies as instances of Connecticut shooting itself in the foot. However,
discussion and debate about such matters can lead to adjustment of
priorities and help Connecticut better recover from the current economic
downturn.

One such area that we have touched on is the state's university and
community college systems. There, educators have expressed the legitimate
concern that the schools' ability to help provide the trained work force
Connecticut companies need now and in the future will be hampered,
especially if cutbacks in educational resources are continued beyond the
current fiscal year.

Now, another area of concern has arisen with the announcement that the
state Judicial Branch is closing its drug courts.

Those courts have been dealing with nonviolent drug offenders in
Bridgeport, Waterbury, New Haven and Hartford. Through the system,
offenders could be offered year-long drug treatment programs rather than
jail time. Charges would be dropped for those who completed the program and
stayed drug-free.

With the official shut-down of the program set for Aug. 1, judicial
officials said about 170 offenders will be put back into the regular court
system, where they may face prison time. This is occurring in the face of
evidence suggesting that legal systems that punish, rather than treat,
nonviolent drug users are counterproductive. Incarceration for drug use has
been blamed for failing to address the root issue of addiction, for
unfairly penalizing minority offenders and for burdening prison systems
with inmates who do not need to be behind bars.

Judicial officials report that drug courts and similar alternative programs
are more labor-intensive than standard court systems, and thus more costly.
However, proponents point out that savings result elsewhere: Drug users can
be diverted from more-serious crime and become productive members of
society; meanwhile taxpayers are relieved of substantial financial burdens
caused by a growing prison population. In Connecticut, prison overcrowding
has required correction officials to pay for shipping out inmates for
detention in other states.

In defense of the closure, Chief Court Administrator Joseph Pellegrino
commented that the drug courts "may not be as successful as we may have
thought." Such phrasing seems to lack conviction, and other officials
involved in the program have praised it. So it may be the decision to end
this program, no matter how effective it is, was viewed as necessary to
help meet the Judicial System's avowed goals during these difficult times:
"Keep our employees, not lay anyone off and deliver all the services
required by the Constitution."

It was an unfortunate, perhaps costly, decision to have to make. It
certainly is among those open to second-guessing. We urge state officials
to reconsider the move, when feasible, to ensure that the need to cut
spending in the short term in this case does not do lasting damage that
will be regretted later.