Miscellaneous

Risk Among Drug Offenders

By Anne Skove, Esq.

We are so inundated with touchy-feely stories about drug courts that it's surprising we haven't gone into diabetic shock, or at least caught a good case of the willies.

From the Utah courts, another story: coveted (in a sense) drug court spaces are now reserved for hard-core offenders. That's because studies show that putting low-level offenders with higher-end addicts doesn't end prettily. Guess what? Right, the addicts are a bad influence. Any parent could have told us that (and perhaps did, back in the day), but it's nice to have a study to back it up.

So starting July 1, Utah drug courts will concentrate on repeat offenders. First-timers must seek treatment elsewhere. This squares court dollars with research findings, says the state's AOC.

At least one prosecutor claims that the money should go to the most deserving group -- that is, low-level offenders. Nip it in the bud, so to speak.

Drug court funding has a long history, dating back to the Age of Reno. The public buy-in required for drug courts to function was twofold: one, the program should not be a "slap on the wrist." Recall, those were the "tough on crime" days, when drugs meant a fried-egg brain.

Second, defendants should not appear overly scary. Federal monies used to start these programs limited their scope: only non-violent (whatever that means -- see 42 USC sec. 3796ii et seq. for a definition of "violent offender") offenders need apply. This limitation, we suppose, was put in place to avoid mass hysteria on the part of the taxpaying public. Surely, we all know a substance abuser; we do not all necessarily know a hardened criminal. Plus, why not save jail beds for the really tough guys?

Now the research seems to indicate just the opposite: first-timers are not such a threat. This squares with impaired-driving studies showing fatalities are caused less by that extra glass of wine (.08 BAC, e.g.), and more by people with extremely high levels of alcohol in their systems who have been arrested repeatedly.

Forgoing federal money is not such a problem anymore, because there isn't that much to go around! States are picking up the slack -- or at least that's the theory; see James W. Douglas and Roger E. Hartley "Sustaining Drug Courts in Arizona and South Carolina: An Experience in Hodgepodge Budgeting," Vol. 25 Justice System Journal (2004). In any case, states are freer to make their own program rules, including who gets in and who doesn't.

See Drug Court Shifting Focus, Jeremy Duda, Daily Herald (June 18, 2008).

See also the Drug Court Clearinghouse, and Penny Wise, Pound Foolish, Dominic Holden, The Stranger (June 18, 2008).

Full post as published by court-o-rama.org on June 18, 2008 (boomark / email).