Addicted to Courts: How a Growing Dependence on Drug Courts Impacts People and Communities, a Justice Policy Institute report, claims that in most cases, drug courts hurt, not help, those who stand before them. According to JPI, nine percent of Americans have been classified with a substance abuse problem yet, only 25 percent get treatment, and of that number, 37 percent are referred by drug courts. JPI believes that accessing treatment through the courts has a negative impact on addicts, as it treats addicts as criminals. JPI would like to see more funds going toward treatment programs, rather than the courts, so that addicts have a better chance at treatment before they are arrested.
JPI reports that as far as obtaining access to treatment, referrals from drug courts and referrals from non-judicial sources are about equal, at 62 percent, and 60 percent respectively. The courts, declares the JPI report, tend to punish those who fail treatment, often incarcerating the addict, and contribute to the rising prison population. Imprisonment of addicts has collateral consequences on addicts, families and communities, say JPI.
While the JPI report agrees that successful treatment has multiple benefits, it concludes that the path to treatment needs to include options other than drug courts. Addicted to Courts provides evidence that drug courts do not necessarily increase public safety, are not cost effective ( community based treatment is ten more cost effective than drug courts, the report states), and drugs courts and community treatment options have approximately the same rate of reducing recidivism.
Instead of reliance on drug courts, the report recommends the following:
1) Investing in community treatment and services so that an individual might be provided help before entering the criminal justice system.
2) Creating more veritable diversion programs and alternatives to incarceration.
3) Collecting more data on drug courts to better evaluate their effectiveness, and to determine if funding should be spent elsewhere.
4) Use court treatment programs as a true diversion for those who otherwise might have received a prison sentence by providing treatment and supervision.
5) Evaluating drug court practices and policies to ensure fairness to all, particularly people of color and low income people.
To view the full report click here to go to website
Almost immediately after the JPI report was issued, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals reacted strongly by issuing their own statement criticizing the “decriminalizers” who sought to discredit the effectiveness of drug courts. NADCP accuses the Drug Policy Alliance, as well as JPI, of presenting inaccurate information in order to gain public support for their decriminalization efforts.
NADCP denies that drug court policies are in any way discriminatory toward minorities. Citing a report by The Sentencing Project that stated drug courts offer treatment alternatives, rather than incarceration for minorities, NADCP castigates JPI for falsely accusing drug court practices as racist. NADCP also refutes the allegation that drug courts are responsible for net-widening, a term that refers to the practice of arresting and incarcerating a greater number of people.
Taking the opposite view of the JPI report, NADCP asserts that many addicts would not seek treatment on their own, and that drug courts play an important role in assuring addicts get the help they need. Cutting funds from drug courts would not necessarily mean that addicts would get treatment elsewhere, according to the NADCP statement. The organization also accused JPI and DPA of providing unscientific evidence to bolster their view that drug courts are ineffective.
While both sides might be seen by some as “cherry picking” their facts to discredit each other, the fact remains that addiction is a disease that effects millions of Americans. Whatever is deemed to be most effective in providing treatment, and in keeping addicts out of prison while they access this treatment, should be supported. Both sides are fighting the same battle. Name calling and angry discourse can only harm those whom each side professes to care about. The organizations involved share a common ideal but have divergent ways of believing what is the best way to obtain it.
To view NADCP statement click here to go to website
|
