The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

Volume 5 Article 6

2002

Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration

Brian Lagenfeld St. John Fisher College, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur

Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons How has open access to Fisher Digital Publications benefited ou?y

Recommended Citation Lagenfeld, Brian. "Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration." The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research 5 (2002): 33-56. Web. [date of access]. .

This document is posted at https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 and is brought to you for free and open access by Fisher Digital Publications at St. John Fisher College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration

Abstract In lieu of an abstract, below is the essay's first paragraph.

In the United States, there is a significant drug problem affecting millions directly and countless others indirectly. Drug use and drug-related crime have been on the rise for decades. The government has attempted numerous programs and policies, even declaring a "war on drugs." None of these programs have been effective, as evident in the fact that drug use has continued to rise. Drug use and drug-related crime have caused a number of problems for the United States. The most detrimental are the loss of life and deterioration of the very fundamentals that make up our society. This deterioration includes rising crime rates, the breakup of neighborhoods, and dysfunction in families. Other problems include the overcrowding of prisons, rising health costs, and ineffective government policies such as wasting money on unsuccessful programs.

This article is available in The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/ vol5/iss1/6 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

e Drug Court: A Therapeutic Alternative to Incarceration by Brian Langenfeld

e "Evet)' ten minutes, the United States to infer whether a particular sentence or government spends $365,000 in the war on program is effective in deterring crime. dmgs. "(Morrell, I) Over the past two decades, while sentences have been getting more rigid, In the United States, there is a significant there has been a movement taking an drug problem affecting millions directly and alternative approach to incarceration and nd countless others indirectly. Drug use and harsher sentences. Known as therapeutic drug-related crime have been on the rise for jurisprudence, this theory focuses on solving decades. The government has attempted the root of the problem: the offender's numerous programs and policies, even addiction. By curing the underlying declaring a "war on drugs." None of these problem, the individual will be punished for and programs have been effective, as evident in their crime, be cured of hi s or her addiction, the fact that drug use has continued to rise. and reintegrate and become a contributing Drug use and drug-related crime have member of society. The most successful of caused a number of problems for the United these therapeutic jurisprudence alternatives 14). States. The most detrimental are the loss of is drug treatment court. Drug court is a :em life and deterioration of the very program in which offenders charged with a fundamentals that make up our society. This non-violent, drug-related crime must meet y, deterioration includes rising crime rates, the certain requirements such as staying drug­ breakup of neighborhoods, and dysfunction free for a year, receiving a high school in families. Other problems include the diploma or GED, and being employed. By overcrowding of prisons, ri sing health costs, meeting these requirements, the offender and ineffective government policies such as avoids jail time. The purpose of drug courts wasting money on unsuccessful programs. is to attempt to cure the offender's addiction, Until recently, the government's thereby avoiding higher incarceration rates response to the drug problem has been to and preventing future crime. increase the sentences of individuals This study will focus on therapeutic convicted of a drug-related crime. One such jurisprudence as a framework and drug court example is the Rockefeller Drug Laws in as the most successful alternative program New York State. Other examples include within it. The study will include a mandatory minimums and extended discussion of the drug problem, its history, maximum sentences. According to the and the alternatives to solving the problem. statistics, harsher sentences have not been To illustrate the benefits and success, a case effective in deterring drug-related crime. study of the Rochester Drug Court will be One of the most significant measurements to undertaken to show the success of the drug determine the success of reducing crime is court movement. recidivism, or the rate at which an individual commits a crime after prior conviction. By examining the recidivism rate, it is possible

33 Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 1 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6

Part I: Literature Review and Theoretical More than four-fifths of these violations are Considerations for possession. (U.S. DOJ Enforcement The issue of drugs in the criminal 200 I, l ). This arrest total does not include justice system and alternatives to the number of individuals arrested for other incarceration have been found in the crimes while under the influence of drugs or criminal justice literature since the early committing crimes to sustain their habit (Sec I 980's. The literature focuses on a number Figure I, Figure 2, and Table 1). of topics, among them the increase in drug use and arrest, the ineffectiveness of harsher sentences, and alternatives to incarceration. Drug abuse violation arrests, 1980-99 One of the primary arguments in the Millions literature is the success and viability of alternatives to incarceration, which will be 1.5 discussed later on. The drug problem in the United 1.0 States is well documented and has been plaguing this nation (or years. According to 0.5 one survey, 10.8% o[Americans have used Imagine That: 0.0 The Gender of War Rhetoric and 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999 Conceptual Complications an illegal drug in the past year, and 72 million Americans over Figure I the age of twelve have used illegal drugs at some point in their lives (Simmons 2). A 1997 survey of state and federal inmates Number of arrests, by type of drug law reports that 51 % (over 570,000 inmates) violations, 1982.a9 reported using drugs or alcohol while 1,500,000 committing their offense. Additionally, 75% of all prisoners abused drugs or alcohol 1,000,000 prior to their conviction (Grangetto 4). Between 1980 and 1998, the number of arrests nationally increased from 10,441,000 500,000 to 14,528,300, a jump of over 40% (Belenko 2). During this time, the number of arrests for drug-related crimes (sale, distribution, 0 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 and possession) increased by 168% from 580,900 to l ,559,100 in 2000 (Belenko 2). From 1980 to 1996, the number of Figure 2 incarcerated drug offenders increased by 1,500% (Grangetto 4). According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, there were Source for Figures I and 2: FBI, Uniform Crime 1,532,200 state and local arrests in 1999 for Reports, Crime in the United States annually. drug abuse violations (unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and making narcotic drugs, and dangerous non­ narcotic drugs) in the United States in 1999.

34 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 2 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

s are Table I ment Estimated totals of top 7 arrest offenses. United The Cost of Drug Use :lude States. 1999 The cost of drug abuse to society is other staggering. It is estimated that the economic Tvpe of Arrest Number of Arrests gs or cost of drug abuse is over $ I I 0 bi 11 ion each (Sec year (Simmons I). Part of this expense is Total Arrests 14,031 ,100 Drug Abuse Violations 1,532,200 seen in increased health care costs, unsafe Dnving Under the Influence 1,5 11 ,300 neighborhoods, and an overburdened Simple Assaults l ,294,400 criminal justice system (Simmons I). Larceny/theft 1,189,400 Additionally, drug abuse has a dramatic Drunkenness 656,100 Disorderly Conduct 633,100 effect on the ultimate cost, human life. Liquor laws 657,900 There are over 9,300 deaths each year among individuals who use drugs (Simmons Source: FBI, Unifom1 Crime Reports, Crime in the 1. The cost can also be seen specifically Uniled Slales Annually within the criminal justice system. According to one scholar, "The drug Often the person arrested is under the problem places a tremendous burden on the influence of drugs upon apprehension, system including the overcrowding of resulting in an additional problem. The correctional facilities, resources the police 19 National Institute of Justice reports that the and prosecutors have to dedicate, and the percentage of men testing positive for drugs struggle of the courts to meet their caseload" at the time of their arrest range from 57% to (Feinblatt 1). The amount the federal 82%, while the percentage of women ranged government spends on drug control has from 35% to 83% ("Development in Law" increased from $1.5 billion in 198 1 to $18 llW 2). The statistics indicate the depth of the billion in 2000 (Curtin 2). It is also problem. estimated that drug users spend more than Many drug arrests involve crimes that $ 150 billion a year purchasing drugs (Curtin are non-violent. Many non-violent 2). Table two below illustrates the Federal offenders become a long term recurring drug control budget. problem, as there is little intervention in terms of treatment for these offenders Table 2 (Robinson 2). These non-violent crimes such as possession rarely involve anyone Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001 except the offender. The question becomes, Federal drug control budget by function do we incarcerate an individual for 2000 2001 1998 possessing a small amount of marijuana with (in millions) (in millions) criminals who have a history of violence? Total $17, 940.3 $18, 053.1 By not offering treatment for the offender, many drug offenders are likely to resume Criminal Justice $8, 429.0 $9, 357.7 criminal behavior once released. Many Drug Treatment 2, 915.2 3, 168.3 Drug Prevention 2, 338.6 2, 515.7 Crime times the level and severity of the crime Interdiction I , 965.9 I, 950.4 lly. increases. One example is an individual International I, 892.9 609.7 who cannot find employment upon release Intelligence 309.1 345.2 Research 89.6 106.J and maintains their drug dependency. To afford this habit, he or she begins to Source: ONDCP, FY 2002 National Drug Control Budget, burglarize homes to pay for the drug April 2001 addiction.

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 35 3 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6

Due to the increase of drug-related with a drug offense were I lispanic, 28% arrests and convictions, prison overcrowding Black, and 2% other ethnic groups, for a has become a significant problem. With the total of 76% (US DOJ, Federal Drug increase in violent crime, prisons have Offenders 1999, 2001, 5). Al so, 9.4% of become overcrowded, leading to a demand black men between twenty-five and twcnty­ for new prison construction and adding to nine are in state or federal prison for a drug­ the economic cost to society. Jn addition to relatedoffensc, ten times that of white men prison overcrowding, another issue is the of the same age, despite studies indicating lack of treatment an individual receives the levels of black and white drug use are at while incarcerated. Drug abuse is a serious the same rate (Curtin 2). Jn New York problem that usually requires treatment, not State, 94% of those incarcerated on drug simply incarceration, to solve the problem. convictions are black or Hi spanic (Wenner If the imprisoned individual does not receive 90). treatment, his or her rate of recidivism will be much higher upon release, since the first Background to Drug Politics inclination of many recently paroled and The war on drugs first began in the late released inmates would be to find drugs. In l 960's and early I 970's. President Richard 1997, it was estimated that 83% of state Nixon first launched the "war on drugs." prison inmates were substance abusers Nixon attempted to attack the suppl y of (Belenko 2). However, in a survey by the drugs coming into the country through National Center on Addiction and Substance increasing customs personnel and working Abuse at Columbia University {CASA), with foreign governments (Simmons 6). only 25% of inmates with a drug problem Nixon also dealt with the problem of received treatment in prison, while a soldiers in Vietnam being withdrawn from General Accounting Office (GAO) survey the war due to their drug addiction. The put the number closer to 20% (Belenko I). government implemented Operation Golden Without some intervention, in this case, it is Flow, a mandatory drug test program for difficult for these individuals to rid returning soldiers. If any soldier tested themselves of their addiction and, when the positive they would not be court-martialed, time comes, reintegrate into society. but instead enrolled in a seven week Additionally, after being incarcerated, mandatory detoxification program individuals are stigmatized for life due to (Simmons 6). One unique aspect of Nixon's their arrest and prosecution (Belenko 1). drug policy was his choice to combat drug This situation will increase the difficulty of abuse by focusing on treatment facilities, the the released offender to obtain a job and be only president to date who has done so accepted as a full-fledged member of (Simmons 6). society. If the offender does not reintegrate The focus of the criminal justice system into society, there is an increased risk of in response to the drug problem was to recidivism. As the criminal justice system is impose stiffer sentences. The prevalent designed in part to protect society from thought at the time (1970's and 1980's) was criminals, releasing untreated drug offenders to establish harsh sentences to deter endangers society. potential drug users. The foremost example There is an argument that minorities are is Governor Nelson Rockefeller and his unfairly targeted by the criminal justice implementation of harsher sentences in New system. According to the United States York State. The Rockefeller drug laws, as Department of Justice, 46% of those charged they came to be called, established

36 - https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 4 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

'28% mandatory sentences, no plea-bargaining, Federal Drug Offenders 1999, 2001, 4). In for a and mandatory life sentences wi thout parole 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Drug for selling hi gh quantities of drugs. This Control and Law Enforcement Act. This 4% of approach attempted to solve the problem by Act increased penalties and expanded the .venty­ prosecuting and incarcerating more drug mandatory minimums (Grangetto 4), but at t drug­ users (Simmons 6). the same time eased some penalties for first e men One of the most significant changes time offenders and non-violent offenders icating occurred during the mid-I 980's. During this (US DOJ, Federal Drug Offenders 1999, : are at time, the use of crack cocaine exploded. 2001, 4). The increasing harshness of York The drug was cheap and plentiful, especially sentences can be seen in the various 1 drug in the inner cities. This epidemic caused the Department of Justice statistics concerning Venner government to establish new mandatory the matter: minimum sentences as well as earmark $97 million for new federal prison construction 1. 87% of drug defendants adjudicated (Simmons 7). Since the influx of crack in 1999 were convicted, compared to he late cocaine occurred, the number of drug­ 76% in 1981 lichard related arrests skyrocketed. Between 1980 2. The percentage of defendants 1rugs." and 1989, national drug arrests increased sentenced to prison increased from 54% ply of 134%, whereas the total number of arrests in 1988 to 72% in 1999 hrough for all crimes rose on ly 37% (Hora I 0). 3. The percentage of drug offenders rorking Among the legislation passed during the sentenced to prison increased from 79% ins 6). 1980's was the Comprehensive Crime in 1988 to 92% in 1999 em of Control Act of 1984. This act established a 4. Prison sentences for drug offenders n from minimum sentence of five years for increased from 71.3 months to 75.4 . The defendants using a firearm in a drug offense, months Golden and one year for offenders selling drugs near 5. Mandatory minimum sentences am for schools or playgrounds (US DOJ, Federal applied to 6 1% of drug offenders during tested Drug Offenders 1999, 200 I, 4). The 1986 1999 ialed, Anti-Drug Abuse Act established mandatory (US DOJ, Pre-Trial, prosecution, and week minimum sentences, increased the length of adjudication, 2001, 5). ogram incarceration, and increased monetary penalties. These sentencing guidelines Many now see the drug war as a failure, include five, ten, and twenty-year minimum as society realizes that imprisoning every sentences for drug trafficking offenses, as drug offender will not solve the problem. In well as one-year minimum sentences for 200 I, a survey indicated that 74% of those convicted of selling drugs to Americans believe the drug war is failing individuals under twenty-one, as well as (Wenner 82). Over his eight years in office, pregnant women (US DOJ, Federal Drug President Clinton spent $120 billion on the evalent Offenders 1999, 2001, 4). In 1988, drug war, and President George W. Bush 's) was Congress lengthened mandatory minimum has already requested more than $18 billion deter sentences, as well as increased maximum for 2002 (Wenner 87). Despite this money, ample sentences in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act the rate of drug use has not decreased, the d his (Grangetto 4). The Act also focused on drug supply is steady, and drug prices have crack cocaine including establishing fallen. This failure is especially apparent in ws, as minimum sentences for possession of the high recidivism rate among offenders. blished amounts of more than five grams {US DOJ, The national recidivism rate for drug-related

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 37 5 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6

crime is 70%. This means that over two out simply imprisoning an individual with an of every three individuals imprisoned for a addiction only exacerbates the situation. drug-related crime will commit another Therefore incarceration as the prime crime once released from prison. This punishment for drug-related crimes should number is staggering, as prison and harsh be reconsidered. sentences are designed in part to act as a Sentencing a drug-addicted offender to deterrent to commit crime. The statistics probation is one alternative. There are over indicate that prison does not cure the root of 3.2 million offenders on probation, serving the problem: drug addiction. Because jails terms of two years (Bi den l ). The difficulty and prisons are unsuccessful in doing so, the with probation is that in many instances, for recidivism rate is extremely high. up to 300,000 probationers, there is little contact with the probation officer (Biden l ). Approaches to Solving the Problem As the offender received little if any Throughout the recent history of the treatment while in jail or prison, the lack of drug problem the response has mainly an authoritative figure lends itself toward focused on incarceration. Incarceration is repeat offenses. Probation is generally simply sentencing the defendant to jail or available for non-violent offenses, where the prison. This traditional approach of offender is not a danger to the community. punishment has resulted in an increase in the Probation saves the system money when number of individuals imprisoned in the past compared to incarceration. There are twenty years. The increase in incarceration various levels of probation, and individuals has lead to many of the overcrowding and who are sentenced for drug-related crimes monetary concerns previously discussed. are generally subject to stricter guidelines The Rockefeller Drug Laws are one of and treatment. One such type of probation the most controversial of the drug is Intensive Supervisory Probation (ISP). A incarceration Jaws in the country. The laws probationer in ISP has requirements much were created in May of 1973 with the more strict than those of a normal purpose of deterring citizens from using or probationer. Drug tests are more frequent, selling drugs and to punish and isolate from and additional programs may be required. society those who were not deterred (Wilson There are a number of approaches, I). When the laws were created, it cost $76 besides incarceration, on how to solve the million, excluding the cost of forty-nine drug problem in America. Each approach is additional judges (Wilson J). One of the somewhat unique, yet all are responses to Rockefeller laws includes a sentence of the failure of harsher sentences and fifteen years to life for possession of more mandatory incarceration. Each alternative than four ounces of cocaine or heroin. This attempts to solve the drug problem through a sentence is greater than those for rape, variety of approaches focused on solving the manslaughter, or assaulting a police officer drug problem. with a weapon (Wishnia l ). Of the Drug education programs are a widely approximately 600 prisoners serving this used prevention method (Simmons l ). sentence, there are no major drug dealers, Programs such as the Drug Abuse but rather couriers, mules, and other Resistance Education {DARE) and the indirectly involved individuals (Wishnia l ). School Program to Educate and Control Statistically, these laws have been Drug Abuse (SPECDA) provide education proven ineffective in deterring crime and to at-risk children, potentially minimizing reducing recidivism. lndications show that the instance of drug use. Because children

https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 38 6 - Lagenfeld: Drug Court

h an are taught the dangers of drug use, they Snowcap, a military effort in Bolivia and 1tion. theoreticall y would be less inclined to use Peru, failed due to oppositi on by farmers mme drugs. Criticism for the educational and guerilla fighters (Simmons 5). )Ou)d approach concerns the limited scope of Legalization also has been advocated by children educated in thi s manner. The some as a way to solve the drug war, er to program also docs not reach children who although to date, by only a small percentage over drop out of school and older children who of individuals. The former Seattle Chief of rvmg may have already started using (Simmons Police, Norm Stamper 1s one such culty 2). Studies have also found that DARE individual, and said : s, for participants are no less likely than their little peers to use drugs. Despite these statistics, I'd use regulation and taxation of these ! n I). the government plans to spend $2 billion on drugs, much as we do with alcohol and any its anti-drug medi a campaign including tobacco, to finance prevention, .ck of billboards, radio, and television (Wenner education, and treatment programs. lWard 84). can't think of a stronger indictment of erally Another approach is militarily based, our current system than that there are re the and focuses on cutting the supply of drugs addicts who don't want to be addicts unity. entering the country. This is generall y used queuing up for treatment and can't get when to support United States military it cause we' re spending too much : are intervention in the countries that supply the money on enforcement and interdiction. iduals drug. The argument is that by destroying (Wenner 89) rnmes the supply of drugs before they enter the el in es United States and putting drug organizations The argument behind legalization is that >ation out of business, the amount of drugs keeping drugs illegal exacerbates the P). A entering the country would be severely problem. These problems include several much limited. The international drug trad e is a thousand deaths a year, drug-related crime, orrnal large and extremely profitable business. AIDS, poisoned drugs, and the uent, The United Nations estimates that illegal attractiveness of being a drug dealer drugs generate $400 billion a year in (Simmons 5). By legalizing drugs, the ch es, revenue and make up almost 8% of global government would have control over e the trade (Wenner 87). This is the reason many potency and purity (Simmons 5). The ach is individuals in the United States have government would also be able to tax drug proposed intervention. Those who support sales, such as it currently does with alcohol. this approach believe that drug trafficking is In addition, it is argued that legalization can a threat to national security and thus impact the level of violent crime. intervention is necessary (Simmons 4). This Proponents of legalization point out that the approach has been put into practice by the highest homicide rates in the history of the United States in the past, but has not been United States came during alcohol idely successful. One such as example was prohibition and the war on drugs (Wenner s 1). Operation Blast Furnace conducted in 1986, 95). buse an attempt to destroy Bolivia's drug A final approach to combating the drug the organizations. Success was limited, as a problem is alternatives to incarceration. number of drug labs were found, but no There are a number of potential alternatives arrests were made, no cocaine seized, and to incarceration which include diversion trafficking resumed once the United States from prosecution, boot camps, and drug left (Simmons 4). In 1988, Operation courts. The theory of treatment as opposed

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 39 7 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6 to incarceration has been around for a however, does. Therapeutic justice addresses sch number of years. It dates back to 1929, with the extent to which substantive rules, legal the Porter Narcotic Farm Act. These fanns procedures, and the roles of lawyers and acted as specialized treatment institutions judges produce therapeutic or anti­ which would unclog prisons, and operated therapeutic consequences for individuals until the I 970's ("Development in Law" 3). involved in the legal process. Professor Diversion from prosecution is the first Christopher Slobogin further refines the alternative to incarceration. The prime definition as "The use of social science to example of diversion from prosecution is study the extent to which a legal rule or Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime practice promotes the psychological and (TASC). TASC was created by the Nixon physical well-being of the people it affects" Administration in response to the 1962 (Hora 3). As the definition suggests, the Robinson vs. California Supreme Court concept refers to how the law and courts are decision, which held that punishing used as a therapeutic or healing agent to individuals for status offenses was cruel and defendants in the criminal process. The unusual punishment ("Development in Law" theory supports social considerations being 3). T ASC programs sent drug abusers to applied to the law and its interpretation. rehab as opposed to simply incarcerating Another way of explaining therapeutic them. justice is that it looks at the defendant Boot camp is a second alternative to through "a different lens," a therapeutic, incarceration. Boot camps are also known medicinal perspective, where substance as shock incarceration programs, and were abuse is not a moral failure, but a medical established in 1983 ("Development in Law" condition requiring treatment (Hora 11 ). 5). According to surveys, there are between Thus, therapeutic jurisprudence echoes the 40 and 70 boot camps in operation today often-cited quote by former Supreme Court ("Development in Law" 5). Boot camps are Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: a form of incarceration, but differ in a few significant ways. Prisoners are subject to The life of law has not been logic: it has military style discipline in order to shape been experience. The felt necessities of their life and reintroduce them into society. the time, the prevalent moral and There is a set regiment each "inmate" must political theories, institutions of public follow, therefore leading to a much more policy, avowed or unconscious, even structured attempt at rehabilitation. The the prejudices which judges share with question then becomes, do boot camps work their fellow-men, have had a good deal to reintroduce offenders into society? Jn a more to do than the syllogism in 1991 New York survey, the recidivism rate determining the rules by which men was reduced in the first year, but the should be governed (Hora 5). difference was gone by the end of two years ("Development in Law" 6). Therapeutic jurisprudence has derived from a number of sources. Its origins Therapeutic Justice pertain to mentally disabled defendants and Most approaches to combating the drug how the criminal justice system deals with problem which have been discussed do not them. At one point, the courts and address the actual substance abuse problem politicians were not seen as supporters of of the offender. One alternative perspective healing or treating a mentally disabled that focuses on ''therapeutic justice," defendant. The therapeutic jurisprudence

40 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 8 Lagenfeld: Drug Court resses school of thought soon began to be applied crime. Jn what is a departure from the norm, legal to other areas, such as with gender and race drug courts view the defendant's case based s and (Perlin 4) on their recovery, as opposed to strictly anti­ The reason therapeutic jurisprudence has applying the law. Therapeutic jurisprudence iduals come to be applied to drug court is that recognizes that drug addiction cannot be fess or treatment is necessary for drug offenders conquered by sanctions such as s the rather than incarceration. Social issues incarceration or probation, but by 1ce to surrounding the offender and the addiction rehabilitation (Simmons 10). Drug courts ~le or must be thoroughly examined and also recognize the principle that relapse is a I and considered. Because therapeutic justice normal part of recovery, and by giving the fee ts" focuses on humane treatment, achieving defendant a second chance therapeutic s, the justice, and returning offenders to society-all principles are being applied (Hora 14). rts are goals of drug court-it appears that this may The first drug court opened in 1989 in ent to be the future of drug prosecution (Simmons Dade County, Florida. The idea for drug The 12). court came from then State Attorney being General Janet Reno (Schmitt 5). Reno has tat ion. Drug Treatment Courts as an example of later been quoted as saying (while U.S. peutic Therapeutic Jurisprudence Attorney General) that the drug court ~ndant The alternative to incarceration, which is concept is "Absolutely essential in helping >eutic, compatible with the theory of therapeutic this nation end the culture of violence that stance justice, is "drug treatment court." John has plagued it for too long" (Schmitt 4). 1edical Goldkamp argues that drug courts are a Chief Judge Gerald Weatherington of I 11). response to three failures of how the court Florida's eleventh judicial circuit issued an es the system normally deals with drug offenders administrative order, which then Associate Court (4). The three reasons are hands-off courts, Judge Herbert Klein coordinated and the non-relevance of probation, and the directed the design and creation of the near-irrelevance of drug treatment. Miami Drug Court (Hora 8). Klein's it has Goldkamp defines the hands-off courts as "a reasoning for the creation of drug court was ies of failure of the nonnal adjudication process to that "Putting more and more offenders on and change much about the drug problem" (4). probation only perpetuates the problem. )ublic The non-relevance of probation is "the The same people are picked up again and even failure of probation to play a meaningful again until they end up in the state with role in identifying risks and needs of penitentiary and take up space that should be deal offenders," and the near-irrelevance of drug used for violent offenders. Drug Court m treatment is "the failure of the drug tackles the problem head-on" (Hora 9). men treatment provider system to deal Klein also concluded, "The answer lay not meaningfully with treatment needs" in finding better ways of handling more and (Goldkamp 4). Drug court approaches the more offenders in the criminal justice erived problem from a therapeutic angle as opposed system, but in determining how to solve the ngms to applying justice and the consequence of problem of larger numbers of people on ts and the law angle because of the problems with drugs" (Hora 19). The program was funded with the traditional system (Simmons I 0). Drug through an increased traffic school cost of and court takes into account certain social issues ten dollars and a nominal fee to enter the which affect the defendant. These drug court program (Schmitt 5). influences are likely the primary cause of The Miami drug court proved to be the defendant's addiction and therefore extremely successful. Between 1989 and

41 Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 9 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6 1993, Miami's drug court had 4,500 in al most all drug courts. The components defendants in their program. By 1993, 66% arc intensive drug treatment for at least a had remained in treatment (1,270), or year, frequent drug screens, and repetitive graduated (I , 700). Additionally, the one­ monitoring of the defendant's progress ycar re-arrest rate was Jess than 3% (Simmons I 0). Other practices of drug court compared to 30% for non-drug court include immediate intervention, a non­ defendants (Hora 9). Jn its first ten years, adversarial adjudication process, a hands-on the Miami Drug Court enrolled 15,000 approach by the judge, treatment with defendants and graduated 12,000 of them clearly defined rules and goals, and team is (Schmitt 5). For the graduates who have involvement including the judge, prosecutor, (' been out a minimum of five years, the defense counsel, treatment providers, and recidivism rate is 24% (Schmitt, 5). corrections personnel (Simmons 10), as well The success of the Miami experiment as community based treatment, timely spurred other states and communities to identification of defendants, and dismissal of establish drug courts. Between 1989 and charge when the program is completed 1994, there were forty-two drugs courts (Belenko 8). established throughout the United States. When the most current data is examined, By 1997, there were 161 drug courts drug courts seem to be an immense success. ("Development in Law" 9). Presently, there The nation-wide recidivism rate for drug are over 600 drug courts in operation and a court defendants is between 2% and 20%, a number more in planning. Among these 600 steady decrease in comparison with plus drug courts, twenty-five are either incarcerated defendants (Simmons I 0). One operating or coming soon in New York State study conducted in 1997 found that out of ("Low re-arrest Rate" 1) . ln addition to the the 28,000 graduates of drug court, only fifty states, drug courts are operated by 1,200 were rearrested, a recidivism rate of forty-four Native American Tribal Courts, 4%. Out of an equal number of regular the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto offenders who were imprisoned, the Rico. (Hora 9); (Belenko 8) Additionally, it recidivism would be over 13,000 or close to is estimated than since the first few hundred 50% (Bush 2). Additionally, the percentage drug offenders in Miami, there have been of drug use for offenders who did not over 140,000 drug offenders who entered complete the program declined significantly, drug court as of the year 2000 (Belenko 8). with 93% of individuals testing negative According to Steven Belenko, there are ("Development in Law" 9). four primary goals of Drug Treatment Court. Drug courts are also far more likely to These goals are intended to reduce drug use break the cycle of addiction for the and drug-related crime by engaging and defendant than voluntary treatment due to retaining defendants in the program, the aspect of coercion. The one-year concentrate drug addiction and adjudication retention rate of drug court defendants is expertise into a single court, address 60%, whereas for voluntary treatment the defendant needs through assessment and rate is only 10% to 30% (Feinblatt 5). One case management, and to free the resources significant factor is that drug courts graduate of the judiciary as well as prosecution and between 70% and 90 % of its participants, a public defense for non-drug-related crimes large number considering the most (Belenko 7). In achieving these goals there successful residential treatment programs is no standard operating procedure. have graduation rates below 30% (Bush 2). However, three key components are evident

42 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 10 Lagenfeld: Drug Court on en ts One measure of success for drug courts serve its needs. There are, however, certain least a is that it comes much cheaper than the criteria set forth by the Department of failure of incarceration. To imprison a drug Justice that is required of all drug courts in offender, it costs $25,000 a year, whereas order to be eli gible for federal grants. These outpatient treatment costs under $5,000 a requirements include: a non­ year, and residenti al treatment between ands-on $5,000 and $15,000 a year (Simmons I). Exclude violent offenders from 1t with The average cost of treatment in drug court program participation 1d team is $900 to $2,200 per defendant, per year Include a long-tenn strategy and secutor, ("Development in Law" 9). detailed implementation plan :rs, and The savings of drug court can also be Identify related governmental or as well seen in reductions of police overtime, community initiatives which timely witness costs, and grand jury costs. One complement the drug 1issal of study found that for every dollar spent on court mpleted drug treatment, seven dollars arc saved • Consult with all affected agencies to through a reduction in criminal activity and ensure appropriate coordination amjned, medical costs (Hora 30). Other benefits Certify that defendants receive success. include the employment of graduates when continual judicial supervision or drug they complete the program, and 450 drug • Describe the methodology which will 20%, a free babies born to graduates by 1997 be used to evaluate the program. l with ("Development in Law" 10). To care for (Robinson 3) 0). One these children if they were born addicted t out of would have cost $2,500 to $5,000 a day The drug court program's success has rt, only (Hora 30). led the federal government to lend its rate of Drug courts are funded in a variety of support, both through federal grants and the regular ways. Many drug courts are eligible for creation of federal agencies, to oversee the :d, the federal grants ranging from $300,000 to drug courts. In I 994, drug courts were close to $500,000 from the Drug Court Program officially recognized under the Department rcentage Office (DCPO) ("Many Drug Courts Facing of Justice's Office of Justi ce Programs. At did not Critical Time" 1). Many drug courts rely on the same time, individuals withjn the drug ficantly, community groups to provide start up courts created the National Association of negative funding. The Rochester Drug Court has Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) (Dorf been successful in maintaining economic 7). A board of drug court professionals ikely to viability through its use of Medicaid to pay including Judge Jeffrey Tauber, Judge Pat for the for treatment. The courts, being part of Morris, and Claire McCaskill founded the : due to Medicaid, require all court-ordered NADCP (Freeman-Wilson 2001, 1). The )ne-year treatment be paid for by Medicaid ("Many NADCP was created because of the need for dants is Drug Courts Facing Critical Time" l ). drug court professionals to join together for ~ent the Federally, President Bush has favored education and advocacy purposes to alter the ;). One maintaining the DCPO's budget of $50 "way business was done in the criminal graduate million which allows for substantial federal justice system" (Freeman-Wilson 200 l, l ). ipants, a funding. Their mission statement is, "The NADCP most As mentioned above, one of the key seeks to reduce substance abuse, crime, and rograms sources of funding is through federal grants. recidivism by promoting and advocating for ush 2). There is no set structure for drug courts, as the establishment and funding of drug courts each city uses its own unique version to best and providing for the collection and

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 43 11 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6 dissemination of information, technical success of the program and its future con assistance, and support to assoc1at1on viability. defi members" (Hora 30). Additionally, the The overall success of drug courts can hel NJ\DCP holds four conferences annually to be traced in part to the active engagement of the discuss drug court issues. In 1995, the its participants. This aspect of drug court is Department of Justice created the Drug significantly different from traditional court dru Court Clearinghouse and Technical in regards to the roles of the major figures Assistance Project (DCCT AP) to assist local involved in the trial including the judge, and state drug court officials in the planning, prosecutor, and defense attorney. This implementing, managing, and evaluating of system of active engagement was laid out in drug courts (Dorf 7). In 1997, the National the First National Drug Court Conference. Drug Court lnstitute (NDCI) was created by A drug court will require different roles a collaboration of the NADCP and Office of and perspectives than found in typical the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). courtrooms. Drug court programs sec the The purpose of the NDCI is to provide drug court, and specifically the judge, as filling a courts with resources to sustain and enhance role that goes beyond that of adjudication. their courts (Weinstein I). These newly Drug courts require their participants to see created institutions serve three purposes: the process as therapeutic and treatment­ diffuse drug court fundamentals, refine these oriented instead of punitive in nature (Hora fundamentals to what works best, and 13). evaluate the outcomes of drug court (Dorf ln traditional court, the prosecutor is 8). responsible for seeing justice done, whether Due to the expans10n and through a conviction or plea bargain. In institutionalization of drug courts, the drug court, the prosecutor works to aid the movement has gained immense support defendant's recovery. One of the major from the government and other roles of the prosecutor in drug court is to organizations. These supporters include screen drug-relatedcases to determine President George W. Bush, Attorney whether drug court is appropriate and the General John Ashcroft, National Drug Czar best option for the defendant, a departure John Walters, as well as the Community from determining whether each case is Anti-Drug Coalition of America, National winnable (Hora 18). During this screening, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes, the prosecutor can determine whether or not National Institute for Drug Abuse, Center the defendant has a record of violence and Substance Abuse Treatment, Center for would pose a risk to public safety (Hora J 8). Substance Abuse Prevention, Native The role of the defense attorney is also American Alliance Foundation, National unique in drug court. The role of the District Attorneys Association, National defense attorney is generally to protect the Association of State Alcohol and Drug rights of the defendant. In drug court, the Abuse Directors, American Society defendant normally waives these rights Addictive Medicine, Justice Management (Simmons 11). Among these rights are Institute, National Center for State Courts, presumption of innocence and the right to a National Council of Juvenile and Family speedy trial ("Development in Law" l 0). Court Judges, Join Together, and American Before the defendant enters drug court, the University of Drug Courts (Freeman­ defense attorney ensures that the defendant Wilson, 200 l, l ). The variety and influence understands their legal rights, the of drug court supporters demonstrates the requirements of the program, and

44 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 12 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

s future consequences of failure (Hora 18). The sense the judge carries out the role of a defense attorney, therefore, is charged with "father figure." Thi s ro le is accomplished mrts can helping to ensure the defendant completes through the judge's influence in the ement of the program. defendant's life as both supportive and ~ court is One important non-traditional actor in authoritati ve (Schmitt 4). The judge, due to ~al court drug court is the treatment provider. These his or her position of influence, is able to r fi gures arc the counselors and rehabilitation guid e the defendant through the process, e judge, directors who work with the defendant in whereas other authority figures are unable This their recovery. The treatment providers are to. id out in in court daily sharing information with the The notion of "judges as social rence. judge, and shaping important treatment and workers" docs have its critics. There are ent roles punishment decisions. "Treatment providers concerns that drug court cannot be effective typical keep the court infonned of each participant's due to judges not being social scientists and see the progress so that rewards and sanctions can therefore unable to adopt behavioral­ filling a be provided" (Hora 19). modification techniques (Haines 2). The dication. The most important actor in drug court is reason Haines makes this argument is that ts to see the judge. As the ultimate authority in the the decisions drug court judges make ·eatment­ treatment process, the judge plays the involve predicting future behavior, re (Hora central role in all court proceedings. In something they are not trained to do. traditional court, the judge is a neutral fact Haines further argues that criminal courts :cutor is finder who presides over the case. In drug are needed for two reasons: to protect the whether court, the judge plays a central role, rights of individuals charged with crimes :am. Jn "actively directing the proceedings, tracking and to enforce the law, not soJve social ) aid the the progress of the defendants, and problems (Haines 4). 1e maJor administering a system of rewards and One question which has been raised, ~rt is to sanctions" (Simmons 11 ). The judge is the is what happens to drug court participants etennine "leader of the drug court team," serving as a who fai l to meet the requirements of the and the link between treatment and the judicial program? Are they to be considered failures ieparture process (Hora 17). Jn order for drug court to and simply sent to serve a maximum jail case 1s be successful, the judge must expand his or sentence? The 1987 Supreme Court creenmg, her knowledge and expertise on substance decision of State v. Vasquez (129 N.J. 189) 1cr or not abuse issues, as it is critical for "earl y and could be interpreted to guarantee that drug ence and frequent judicial intervention" to properly court failures get the mandatory minimum fora 18). intervene and make punishment and sentence (O'Brien 2). Decisions and laws 1y is also treatment decisions (Hora 17). such as this do exist in other states and have e of the From a sociological viewpoint, the judge the potential to be applied leading to otect the becomes the primary authority figure in the individuals who need treatment to be sent to ;ourt, the defendant's life. In a survey by Dr. Sally prison where they will not receive it. The ~ rights Sate!, 80% of participants said they would idea that failing will result in a mandatory lghts are not have remained in drug court if it were minimum sentence docs have the potential ' ght to a not for the judge. Another survey found that to act as a strong incentive for the defendant w" 10). there was a decline of over 50% in the to complete the program. However, a new ~urt, the dropout and recidivism rates when the problem occurs: fear of fai lure and the risk efendant Stillwater, Oklahoma Drug Court went from of receiving a mandatory sentence. This ts, the District Attorney controlled to that of may cause many defendants to choose not to and judicially directed (Danziger 3). In this participate in drug court.

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 45 13 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6 While drug courts have developed at an recogmt1on of that need, the remainder of incredible rate and have already been proven this study focuses on a case study of the to reduce recidivism, there are a number of Rochester Drug Treatment Court [ROTC]. issues which need to be addressed in order The focus of the case study is to assess to correct the current problems and further whether the ROTC successfully meets the improve drug courts. One of the most requirements outlined in therapeutic significant concerns is what happens to the jurisprudence, and whether it has been an defendant once they graduate from the effective alternative to incarceration for program. Currently there is little, if any, drug-related offenses. monitoring of graduates in the majority of The ROTC provides an excellent drug courts. The solution would be for drug example for the case study due to its many courts to mandate after-care treatment once unique features. Also, Rochester was one of the defendant has graduated (Schmitt 6). the earliest drug courts, as well as being the One problem with drug courts to date first in New York State. The ROTC is also is their accessibility and availability. Drug the largest drug court in the state. In court has not reached as many addicted addition to the features of the drug court, individuals as necessary to solve the drug Rochester is a prime city for the study. The problem. According to California drug problem is well documented, and the Congresswomen Loretta Sanchez, "For city had the highest level of murders in the every person we're putting into a drug court state, twice that of New York City. It is who gets diverted into drug treatment, estimated that 40% or more of these killings there's got to be thirty who go straight to are drug-related( Craig I). Each year, there prison ... It would be much better if we did are approximately 4,800 people arrested in more of these drug courts, where you get a Monroe County on drug-related charges second chance" (Wenner 87). (Morrell 1). An additional concern of drug court The problems that drugs cause for professionals is the lack of treatment in Monroe County are staggering. In addition certain areas. According to Reginald Hester, to incarcerations, Rochester is hurt both an intake coordinator at Atlanta's New Start economically and in regard to the quality of Drug Program, drug treatment is not enough, neighborhoods for people living in these as many of the individuals need therapy for communities. "Illegal drugs are at the crux sexual abuse and dysfunctional families of every criminal and societal problem in (Schmitt 6). One study found that this community, from homicides to individuals with mental illness are 2.7 times burglaries, to prostitution to car break-ins, to more likely to have substance abuse shootings," according to Rochester Police problems than individuals without a mental Chief Robert Duffy (Morrell 1). Robert illness. Additionally, individuals with Squires, the Monroe County Jail substance abuse problems are five times superintendent, estimates that 85% of the more likely to have a mental illness than 1,325 inmates at the jail are there for crimes non-substance abusers (Hora 12). related to drugs (Morrell I). Each year, between 50% and 70% of the Part II: Case Study children in foster care come from homes One conclusion that most students of with drug-addicted parents. The typical cost drug courts make is the need to continue of services for a foster child is $17,000, but gathering data and assessing the for children with drug-addicted parents it performance of existing drug courts. In can cost up to $70,000 a year due to

https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 46 14 - Lagenfeld: Drug Court tinder of additional costs such as treatment (Morrell The goal of the ROTC, in the words of y of the I). one of its founders, Judge John Schwartz, is [ROTC]. to " rehabilitate substance abuse offenders o assess Rochester Drug Treatment Court and to protect the community by reducing 1cets the The Rochester Drug Treatment Cou1t recidivism." This is accomplished partially erapeutic was first discussed in 1993 in a gathering of through "focusing on immediate drug been an community leaders intent on solving the treatment instead of lengthy prosecutions" ,tion for drug problem within the community. T hi s (Schwartz 275). Current Drug Treatment gathering of community officials and Court Judge Joseph Valentino told the exce!Jent individuals within the legal profession met Democrat and Chronicle in 2000: "The its many often to discuss the problem. Among the program is not just aimed at people being !lS one of problems being discussed were the clean all the time. It's also important that >eing the overcrowding of jails, the heavy burden on they have an education and have a job" C is also the docket, and the social and economic ("Low re-arrest rate" 2). Information ate. In problems in the Rochester community due to provided by ROTC Special Projects 1g court, drug use and abuse. The result of these Coordinator Sherry Lintz suggests that there 1dy. The meetings was to ask the community for are nine components essential to the RDTC. and the grant money to begin a drug treatment court. These nine components are as follows: rs in the When the ROTC was being planned, y. It is there was a great amount of political debate. I . Drug courts integrate treatment with ~ killings The underlying issue was whether or not the the justice system :ar, there local government would be considered soft 2. A non-adversari al approach is used rested in on crime. The "incarcerate all drug to promote public safety and protect the charges offenders and the problem will go away" defendant's due process rights mindset has been prevalent for decades. The 3. Early identification and placement of tuse for meetings mentioned above helped to eligible defendants addition alleviate some of the concerns, but the 4. Access to treatment and urt both project was still considered risky and could rehabilitation services uality of have jeopardized the political careers of a 5. Monitored abstinence through testing in these number of individuals involved. 6. A coordinated strategy to ensure the crux Among the point of contention from the compliance 1blem in RDTC's opponents were that drug courts 7. Judicial interaction with each ides to would be soft on crime ("Low re-arrest rate" defendant tk-ins, to 2). This argument is based on the premise 8. Continuing education to ensure :r Police that the individuals who committed the effective planning, implementation, and Robert drug-related crime would not be held operation of drug court :y Jail accountable for their actions. This troubled 9. Promoting partnerships between ~ of the a number of individuals who feared they drug court, public agencies, and )r crimes would be perceived weak on the drug and community based organizations. crime issue. What they ignored was that % of the statistics show that drug court is "tougher on Operation and Procedure of RDTC l homes crime" in the sense that is has a higher A defendant must meet certain ical cost success rate in solving the problem. Also, if requirements in order to be eligible for drug 000, but the defendant fails at any point in the court. The crime the defendant committed rents it treatment, they can be sentenced to prison in must be drug-related or addiction driven. due to accordance with their original crime. This includes drug offenses, such as

47 Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 15 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6

possession, as well as crimes committed due for one-year, a high school diploma or GED, to an addiction, such as robbery. The crimes and to have a job or begin looking for a job can be either a mi sdemeanor or a felony. In after seven months. Defendants arc also told both cases the defendant may be eligible for that they can stay in drug court or return to drug court. Individuals committing violent the referring court to face their charges. The crimes, however, are not eligible. These judge also explains that drug court is harder crimes include sexual crimes, weapon than returning to face the original charges possession, and violence such as murder. and simply being sent to jail. If defendants Additionally, any individual charged with choose to stay in the drug court program, selling drugs of any quantity is not eligible. they are required to undergo testing and an Defendants on probation or parole at the interview to determine the appropriate level time of their crime also are ineligible of treatment. Options include being (Schwartz 258). released, sent to a day reporting center, ano To successfully complete RDTC, the inpatient treatment, or, if there are no beds they defendant must participate in an intensive in a treatment facility, they are sent back to they two-year drug treatment program. To be jail to await an opening. Once these initial Thei successfully discharged, one of the stages are determined, the process of forl components of the completed program is to rehabilitation begins. remain drug-free for at least one year. One The RDTC process is multi-faceted. aspect of the treatment program is the The defendant undergoes intensive treatment educational and vocational training required for their drug addiction with counselors of the defendant. from one of the treatment providers, When an individual commits a crime, including Bridge, Main Quest, and Huether the court determines whether or not the Doyle. The treatment varies for each individual is addicted to drugs or alcohol individual, but the goal is the same for each: after their arraignment. The assistant district ending the addiction and reintegration into attorney and defense attorney then review society. In addition to the treatment the case (Schwartz 258). If defendants are component, the defendant is also required to found to be eligible and agree to be make regular court appearances. During the transferred, then the court in which they early stages of treatment, the defendant is were arraigned refers the individual to the required to appear regularly, sometimes drug court. Once in drug court, defendants daily. As the treatment progresses, and the begin a minimum of a one-year program to defendant demonstrates they can be trusted, cure them of addiction and reintegrate them appearances then become weekly, then bi­ into society. weekly, and eventually monthly. These When referred to drug court, the court sessions are used to closely monitor defendant spends the morning (or afternoon, the progress of each defendant. Each depending on which session) observing the defendant is called before the judge and process of drug court from the jury box. appears with their treatment manager. The When the docket for that morning is judge asks if they are completing their complete, the drug court judge calls each program and how they are progressing. This defendant forward and has a short provides an opportunity for the judge to conversation with each individual. During work one on one with each defendant. This this conversation, the judge explains the personal approach is one of the keys for program required to complete drug court. success. These requirements are no drugs or alcohol

48 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 16 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

ir GED, Some defendants are required to undergo the treatment program, the pending criminal or a job urine screens when the court session begins. charges against them arc dropped and they 1lso told The judge calls their names in the morning do not receive any priso n time, even if they etum to and asks if they are clean or not. If were facing twenty years or more. cs. The defendants arc honest with the judge and say The ROTC is known throughout the s harder they are not clean, they are required to sit in country as one of the most innovative courts charges the "box," a group of chairs in front of the of its kind. Many cities across the country ~end ants jury box . Since the defendant was honest he use a number of the same components that rogram, or she is not sent to jail. Jt is understood that the ROTC has devised and implemented. ; and an many defendants will relapse during their The ROTC uses community-based case 1te level treatment. Therefore, if a relapse does occur managers and chemical dependency ; being and the defendant is honest, they receive counselors. A comprehensive training center, another chance. If defendants tell the judge policy, including a case management no beds they are clean, and their urine screen shows handbook, has been created (Cohen 2). This back to they are not, the defendant is sent to jail. ensures a high level of consistency and ;e initial Their imprisonment is not for relapsing, but excellence in the training of each case cess of for lying to the judge. manager. One reason fo r this action relates to a One of the most intriguing and -faceted. principal goal of drug court whi ch is innovative aspects of the ROTC is the reatrnent reintegration into society. Reintegration alumni group. The Alumni group, known as 1unselors requires personal responsibility. Lying is "The Clean Slate," was one of the first drug roviders, not accepting responsibility, and for lying, court alumni groups in the nation. Huether defendants can be sentenced for up to According to the alumni handbook, the for each fourteen days in prison (Schwartz 258), after alumni group was developed for "people for each: which the defendants arc released and re­ who are winning their battles against ,tion into enter treatment. One graduate, Beth Coombs addiction, and have successfully completed treatment said "On the streets many people don't even the requirements of drug court. quired to want to go to drug court because it's harder. Participation is not mandatory, but is an ruring the You're talking responsibility ... You ' re opportunity to gain and give support as you endant is talking about growing up" ("Low re-arrest continue recovery" (The Clean Slate ometimes rate" 2). Defendants are penalized if they Alumni Handbook). Not only is the alumni i, and the fail to show for a court appearance (unless in group designed to continue the recovery of e trusted, a treatment session), or if they are late. The the graduates, but also to help individuals then bi- punishment is either jail time or they must currently in drug court. Members of the These report daily and sit in the "penalty box." alumni group work with defendants in a ( monitor There are no excuses accepted in drug court. number of capacities. Alumni are peer L Each There have even been instances where a counselors and mentors, serve on relapse udge and parent was sent to jail while they have a panels, are involved with public speaking on 1ger. The young child with them and no one to take drug court, and make suggestions for ting their care of the child. program improvements at monthly meetings ;ing. This There are also rewards for those (Clean Slate, I). Alumni serve as judge to defendants who have succeeded in their counselors and mentors to defendants, as lant. This treatment. If their progress is extremely they are able to relate their experiences and keys for successful, they receive a round of applause setbacks. Relapse panels are monthly from the courtroom, lead by the judge. meetings in which defendants who relapsed When a defendant successfully completes are ordered to attend. Alumni serve on the

49 Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 17 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6 indicates that the people of New York State and is therefore the best option in winning support th e shift towards treatment. The the "war on drugs." first questi on was, "If your state legislator were to vote in favor of a bill to reduce some Cl sentences, and give judges greater discretion Works Cited to decide appropriate penalties, would this make you much more likely, somewhat Apgar, Evelyn. "New Drug Court: Kids of more likely, somewhat less likely, or much Addicts to be the Focus." New Jersey c less likely to vote for him or her?" The Lawyer. December 25, 2000, I. results indicate that 50.3% would be more likely to vote whereas only 25. 1% would be Belenko, Steven. "The Challenges of less likely (21.5% said it would make no Integrating Drug Treatment into the difference) ("Results for Zogby International Criminal Justice Process." Albany Law Poll" I). Another question on the survey Review 833. 2000, 1-3 1. indicates the support of treatment as c opposed to incarceration. When asked Belser, Ann. "Drug Court in Search of whether individuals caught in possession of Criminals; Participants Must be Hard­ drugs should be incarcerated or receive core Offenders." Pillsburgh Post­ treatment, 73.8% said treatment would be Gazette. September 12, 1999, 1-3. preferable, as opposed to 18.9% who supported incarceration ("Results for Zogby Berry, Jahna. "Clean Teens." The International Poll" 1) . Recorder. Friday, March 30, 2001, East Traditional courts have been seen as Bay Focus I . actually continuing drug abuse, because defense counsel functions and court Bi den, Senator. "Drug Court proceedings can reinforce the defendant's Reauthorization and Improvement Act of denial of a problem (Hora 13). Therefore, 1999." Congressional Record Article J the court system must be reoriented to deal of3 . October 28, 1999, 1-2. with the drug problem. This change is both imminent and gradual, as the need for Bridge, Catherine. "Getting High on Special change has been recognized, but will take a Drug Courts." The Recorder. July 13, number of years in order to properly reshape 1998, 1-4. the mindset of individuals. Overall, despite the changes which still Briscoe, Andre. "Actor Tells Drug Court need to be made, drug courts have been an Graduates to ' Stay With the Program." immense success in fighting drug addiction Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Friday, and abuse. The case study of the Rochester December 22, 2000, 3. drug court shows the numerous advantages they can offer to the individuals in the Bush, Paul. "Drug Courts Offer What program, as well as the community. The Others Can't; Punishment, Treatment effects on neighborhoods, the economy, and Quick." The Times-Picayue. Sunday, the quality of life all improve with the June 22, 1997, A3. success of drug court. Drug court lives up to the ideals of therapeutic jurisprudence in Caher, John. "Chief Judge Announces curing the defendant of their addiction. The Reforms; Judiciary to Move Ahead on success of drug court has been documented Reorganizing Courts, Drug Laws, 18-B

https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 52 18 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

1 winning Rates." New York Law Journal. " Drug Court Movement is Growing." Tuesday, January 9, 2001, 1. Corrections Professional Volume 5 Number 11 . February 25, 2000. Clean Slate. "Drug Treatment Court "Clean Slate" Alumni Group." Article/or the "Drug Courts: The method of choice to case Seventh Judicial District Newsletter. the strain on corrections budget." t: Kids of Corrections Professional Volume 5 nv Jersey Cohen, Allan, Barry Kibel, and Doreen Number 11. February 25, 2000. 1-3. Branch. "Rochester Drug Treatment Court Enhancement Project Executive "Drug War will lean toward prevention, enges of Summary." Pacific /nstilutefor treatment under drug czar nominee's into the Research & Evaluation. September 27, watch." Corrections Professional bany Law 2000, 1-6. Volume 6 Number 22. August 10, 2001, 1-3. Cole, David. "Doing Time-In Rehab: Drug Search of courts keep addicts out of jail." The Dorf, Michael C. and Charles Sabel. " Drug be Hard­ Nation Volume 269 Jssue 8. September Treatment Courts and the Emergent gh Post­ 20, 1999, 1-3. Experimentalist Government." l-3. Vanderbilt Law Review 831. April 2000, Cose, Ellis. ''The Casualties of War: Using 1-41 . " The prisons to solve the drug problem hurts WO! , East not just the black and Latino Elliot, Janet and Dale Lezon. "Bill Pushes communities that have suffered the most, Drug Courts on Counties." The Houston but all of America." Newsweek Volume Chronicle. Wednesday, April 2, 2001, Court 134 Issue 10. September 6, 1999, 1-2. Al. ent Act of r Article I Craig, Gary. "Drug Summit a Call to Feinblatt, John, Greg Berman, and Aubrey Action." Democrat and Chronicle. Fox. "Institutionalizing Innovations: December 2, 200 I, I . The New York Drug Court Story." on Special Fordham Urban Law Journal 277. July 13, Curtin, John T. "Drug Policy Altematives­ October 2000, 1-14. A Response from the Bench." Fordham Urban Law Journal 263. October 2000, "For manageable corrections budgets shift ~Court 1-15. focus to treatment." Corrections ograrn." Professional Volume 6 Number J J . . Friday, Danziger, Gloria and Jeffrey A. Kuhn. February 23, 200 I, 1-3. "Drug Treatment Courts: Evolution, Evaluation, and Future Directions." Freeman-Wilson, Karen. "Letter from the r'hat Journal ofHealth Care Law & Policy President." atment 166. 1999, 1-19. www.nadcp.org/whatis/letter.html 200 I, Sunday, 1-2. "Development in Law: Alternatives to Incarceration." Harvard law Review Freeman-Wilson, Karen. "New NADCP 111ces Ill (1998) 1-24. director seeks expansion of drug court head on capacity, funding." Alcoholism & Drug ws, 18-B Abuse Weekly. April 9, 2001, 1-3.

Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 53 19 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6

Participants." Corrections Compendium Goldkamp, John S. "The Drug Court Volume 25 Issue 6. June 2000, 1-6. Response: Issues and Implications for Justice Change." Albany Law Review "Justice-treatment relationship crucial to 923. 2000, 1-33. drug court success." Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly Volume 1IIssue 25. June Goldstein, Matthew. "Brooklyn Drug Court 2 1, 1999, 4. Sets Sights on Recovery." New York Law Journal. Thursday, January 30, Kim, 11-Joong, Bruce L. Benson, David W. 1997, I. Ramussen, and Thomas W. Zuehlke. "An Economic Analysis of Recidivism Grangetto, Dess Aldredge. "Reducing Among Drug Offenders." Southern Recidivism by Substance Abusers Who Economic Journal Volume 60 Number 1. Commit Drug and Alcohol Related July 1993, 169-184. Crimes." University ofSan Diego School ofLaw Journal ofContemporary "Low re-arrest rate among graduates of drug Legal Issues Is. 383. 1999, 1-21. treatment court." AP State & Local Wire. November 30, 2000, 1-2. Grier, Peter. "Beyond the Data and Funding Disputes, Participants Celebrate Little "Many drug courts facing critical time for Victories at Drug Treahnent Court's funding." Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Commencement." Th e Daily Record. Weekly Volume 13 Issue JO. March 5, May 6, 2000, 1-3. 2001 , l.

Haines, Martin L. "Judges are not Social Morrell, Alan. "The Big Deal: Illegal Drugs Scientists." New Jersey Law Journal in the Rochester Region." Democrat 691. November 22, 1999, 1-6. and Chronicle. Monday, June 25, 2001, 1. Hayes, Gloria. "Graduating to a Second Chance." The Legal Intelligencer. "New York drug reforms call for drug Thursday, June 15, 2000, Regional News treatment, not incarceration." 3. Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly Volume 12 Issue 27. July 3, 2000, 1-3. Hora, The Honorable Peggy Fulton, The Honorable William G. Schma, and John O'Brien, Tim. "Prosecutors Gird for Turf T.A. Rosenthal. "Therapeutic War Over Drug Sentencing Power." Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment New Jersey Law Journal 147. April 7, Court Movement: Revolutionizing the 1997. Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America." O'Connell, Kevin. "Instead of Jail, Drug Notre Dame Law Review 439. January Court Offers Disciplined Treatment." 1999, 1-84. Yale Daily News Online. Thursday, October 24, 1996. Johnson, Shelley, Deborah Koetzle Shaffer, and Edward J. Latessa. "A Comparison of Male and Female Drug Court

54 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 20 Lagenfeld: Drug Court

1endium Perlin, Michael. "A Law of Healing." -6. University of Cincinnati l aw Review Smith, Scott C. "County's Drug Court 407. Winter 2000. Program Results in Lower Recidi vism 31 to Rates, Researchers Say." Metropolitan &Drug Renaud, Trisha. "Drug Court Open for New-Enterprise. T hursday, May 18, 1 5. June 1 Business; I 5 Defenders Sent to 2000, 3. Treatments before and Approving Audience." Fulton County Daily Spencer, Gary. "Pataki Endorses Courts vidW. Report. March 14, 1997, 1-3. Budget; $911.5 Million Plan Sent to Jke. Legislature." New York Law Journal. livism "Results for Zogby International Poll on Thursday, February 2, 1995, I. em RockefeJler Drug Laws (New York 1mber J. State)." The Lindesmith Center-Dmg Sullivan, John. "Drug Courts Added to Policy Foundation. April 28, 1999, I. Family Courts System." The New York Times. Thursday, April 17, 1997 Late of drug Ringel, Jonathan. "Drug Courts Key to Edition, Section B, Page 3, Column I. cal Battling Recidivism Rates." Fulton County Daily Report. August 11 , 1999, Tennen, Melissa. "Drug Court; Success 1-2. Stories." New Jersey Lawyer. January 1e fo r 6, 1997, 1-6. buse Robinson, Reginald. "Drug Courts: rch 5, Proposed Rule." Office ofJu stice Toutant, Charl es. "Public Poli cy Think Programs [OJP No. 1014). January 26, Tank Urges Expanding Drug Courts 1995 RIN I 12 1-AA26, 1-8 Statewide." New Jersey law Journal. 11 Drugs October 23, 2000. 1cral Schwartz, John R. J.D. and Linda Pedl ey ), 200 1, Schwartz. ''The Drug Court: A New United States. Executive Office of the Strategy for Drug Use Prevention." President: Office of National Drug Substance Abuse in Pregnancy Volume Control Policy. Drug Policy Jnfo rrnation 25 Number I. March 1998. Clearinghouse Fact Sheet. Drug Trea tment in the Criminal Justice [y Schmitt, Ben. "Drug Court Offers a Second System. March 200 I . 0, 1-3. Chance at Productive Life." Fulton County Daily Reporter. April 12, 1999, United States. Executive Office of the rTurf 1-8. President: Office of National Drug er." Control Policy. Drug Policy Info rmati on pril 7' "Silver Tenns Pataki Drug Law Proposals Clearinghouse Fact Sheet. Drug-Related 'A Step Forward, But not Dramatic Crime. March 2000. Change."http://www.drugpolicy.org/new Drug slpr-july24-0lx.html. January 17, 200 I. United States. U.S. Department of Justice: ent." Bureau of Justice Statistics. lay, Simmons, Pamela. "Solving the Nation's Enforcement: Arrest and Seizures and Drug Problem: Drug Courts Signal a Law Enforcement Operations. Move Toward Therapeutic www.ojp.usdoj .gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm, Jurisprudence." Gonzaga Law Review. August 28, 200 I. 1999/2000, 1-34.

55 Published by Fisher Digital Publications, 2002 21 The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research, Vol. 5 [2002], Art. 6

United States. U.S. Justice Department: Correctional Populations and Facilities. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Pretrial, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/correct.htm, Prosecution, and Adjudication. August 28, 200 I. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcfi'ptrpa.htm, August 28, 2001. United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correction United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Statistics. Drng Enforcement Administration. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm, Drug Statistics. August 28, 200 I . www.usdoj.gov/dea/stats/drugstats.htm, 2000. United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs. Drug United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Courts: Proposed Rule. January 26, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Crime Use. 1995 RIN l l 2 l-AA26. www .ojp. usdoj .gov/bjs/dcf/du.htm, August 28, 200 I . Weinstein, Susan. ''The National Drug Court Institute is Created Through a United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Partnership Between NADCP and Office of Justice Programs. Drug ONDCP." Control Budget. www.nadcp.org/publicrelations/national www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/dcb.htm, drug. html. December 10, 1987, I. August 28. 2001. Wenner, Jann. "America's War on Drugs." United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Rolling Stone Issue 875. August 16, Office of Justice Programs. Drug Use, 2001, 82-98. Testing, and Treatment in Jails. September 29, 2000. Wilson, Aaron. "Rockefeller Drug Laws Information Sheet." United States. U.S. Department of Justice: http :l/www.prdi. orglrocklawfact. html. Office of Justice Programs. Federal Drug Offenders, 1999 with Trends 1984- Wishnia, Steven. "The Rockefeller Drug 99. August 2001. Law."http://www.tenant.net/Tengroup/M etcounc/SepOO/druglaws.html. United States. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

56 https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/ur/vol5/iss1/6 22