WHAT JOB IS DRUG COURT DOING?

Judge Elinore Marsh Stormer should do some research before claiming, as the
headline of her Feb. 28 letter stated, "Drug court is doing the job."

In recent years, drug courts have become a popular, widely praised and
rapidly expanding alternative approach of dealing with drug offenders and
sometimes with people charged with nonviolent crimes who are drug users,
substituting mandatory treatment for incarceration. Although they have been
much applauded, concerns have been expressed about the fairness and
effectiveness of providing coerced treatment at a time when the needs for
voluntary treatment are not being met -- which creates the strange
circumstance of needing to get arrested to get treatment.

People forced into treatment may just be people who use drugs in a
nonproblematic way and happened to get arrested. Arrest is not the best way
to determine who should get treatment.

These courts are a much less expensive way of handling drug cases in the
criminal justice system and may result in more people being arrested, many
of whom would not have been. Thus, they may be expanding the number of
people hurt by the drug war.

Drug courts are creating a separate system of justice for drug offenders,
one that does not rely on the key traditions of an adversary system of
justice and due process -- a system where the defense, prosecution and
judge work as a team to force the offender into a treatment program. These
courts only rely on abstinence-based treatment.

They also rely heavily on urine testing, rather than focusing on whether
the person is succeeding in employment, education or family relationships.

Drug courts often mandate 12-step treatment programs, which some believe to
be an infringement on religious freedom, and they invade the
confidentiality of patient and health-care provider. The health-care
provider's client is really the court, prosecutor and probation officer,
rather than the person who is getting treatment.

LARRY SEGUIN, Lisbon, N.Y.