Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2000 The Christian Science Publishing Society.
Contact:  One Norway Street, Boston, MA 02115
Fax: (617) 450-2031
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Forum: http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/vox/p-vox.html
Author: Alexandra Marks, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Cited: The California Referendum: http://www.drugreform.org/
Religious Leaders for a More Just and Compassionate Drug Policy: 
http://religiousleaders.home.mindspring.com/
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse: http://www.casacolumbia.org/
See also: http://www.csdp.org/ads/casa.htm

IN DRUG WAR, TREATMENT IS BACK

California Credits Treatment With Its First Drop In Prison Inmates In Two 
Decades.

NEW YORK - After a quarter century of toughness toward criminals, a 
movement is growing nationwide to emphasize treatment for nonviolent drug 
offenders and other forms of alternative sentencing rather than simply lock 
them up.

The move is being driven by the need to deal with the social and economic 
costs of burgeoning prison populations, and the belief that the get-tough 
approach hasn't helped alleviate the nation's core drug problem.

Significantly, the main impetus for the change isn't coming from 
politicians, many of whom remain wary of doing anything that will make them 
look soft on crime.

Instead, it is being spearheaded by a wide range of social, religious, and 
judicial leaders who believe that treatment and alternative sentencing not 
only cost less than prison, but are more effective in giving people back 
productive lives.

"It makes no sense to simply keep locking people up," says Bridget Brennan, 
New York's special narcotics prosecutor. "You have to address the demand 
side as well."

Already, the movement may be having some effect. California officials 
credit treatment and alternative-sentencing programs with contributing to 
the first drop in the state's prison population in more than two decades. 
The rate of increase in inmate populations is slowing in other states as 
well, including New York.

Most of the changes proposed or under way in the criminal-justice system 
are the result of popular referendums or crusading local officials taking 
on reform - in essence, doing end runs around state and federal legislative 
bodies.

In November, voters in California and Massachusetts will be asked to follow 
Arizona's lead and approve referendums that call for mandatory treatment 
and alternative sentencing in lieu of tough mandatory minimum sentences for 
drug offenders.

Last month, Judith Kaye, chief judge of New York's Court of Appeals, 
ordered a systematic overhaul of the state's entire court system and 
required that nonviolent drug-addicted offenders be given the choice of 
treatment or prison.

In the past two decades, the state has seen a 400 percent increase in the 
number of narcotics cases before the courts. Judge Kaye hopes eventually to 
divert as many as 10,000 defendants into mandatory treatment programs, 
saving taxpayers more than $500 million a year.

"It's an eye-opening statistic that approximately 75 percent of all 
defendants in New York City test positive for drugs at the time of their 
arrest," says Kaye.

But critics have noted that Kaye's proposal, like many of the experiments 
under way nationwide, will have a limited impact. First, because she needs 
the cooperation of prosecutors who make the ultimate decision about who can 
be diverted into treatment. But also because the reforms will not apply to 
people sentenced under the state's mandatory minimum drug laws, which would 
take an act of the legislature to change.

Returning Power To The Judges

"What needs to happen for there to really be a different way to approach 
the war on drugs is for the discretion to be returned to the hands of the 
judges," says Robert Gangi of the Correctional Association of New York. 
"Then you'd get more of a public-health approach to the drug problem than a 
law-enforcement one."

Still, Mr. Gangi and other critics of the nation's criminal-justice policy 
applaud Kaye's move, saying it sends a powerful signal to have the state's 
top judge on the side of reform.

"It reflects a growing recognition at the state and local levels as to the 
ineffectiveness of the approach we've taken to the drug issue in the past 
20-plus years," says Michael Massing, author of "The Fix," a comprehensive 
look at the history of the nation's current drug policy.

"It's very significant for a well-respected person in her position to come 
out and say, 'Look, this policy isn't getting the job done.' " Kaye is part 
of a small but growing chorus of bipartisan voices calling for reform 
ranging from New Mexico's Republican governor to Nobel prizewinning 
economist Milton Friedman.

Indeed, a group called Religious Leaders for a More Just and Compassionate 
Drug Policy has made reforming the drug laws a top priority. It was founded 
by the Rev. Howard Moody, who came to conclude that the so-called war on 
drugs disproportionately targets people of color and has done more harm in 
low-income neighborhoods than good.

"The drug war is unjust, immoral, and unwinnable," he says. "I believe 
we'll never be able to stop it and change the racist laws unless religious 
institutions got involved and gave religious dimensions to the opposition 
as well."

Not all religious leaders share that opinion. For many conservative clergy, 
the long mandatory sentences meted out for drug offenses are just 
punishment for the crime. And while a growing number of prosecutors are 
supportive of treatment and sentencing alternatives, many also remain 
staunch supporters of current policy.

Sketchy History Of Success

Conservatives point out that in the '60s and '70s, drug treatment was used 
as an alternative to prison and rarely proved effective. Ms. Brennan in New 
York says she believes that was because some judges and prosecutors at the 
time used treatment more as a "calendar-clearing device" than a serious 
alternative to jail.

"So there was a great deal of skepticism about it - it probably took 
another 25 years before prosecutors and law enforcement [started] tiptoeing 
back into it," she says. "But we're always looking to do things better and 
smarter."

Brennan says that's why the programs now are quite specific about what 
kinds of defendants they'll accept for treatment and are extremely 
stringent in enforcing all the rules.

But even with such changes, the vast preponderance of federal and state 
dollars are still spent on arresting and locking up drug offenders in 
prisons. And to cope with that, the prison building boom continues.

"There's still a ways to go," says Steven Belenko, fellow at the National 
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in New York. 
"But we may have turned a corner in terms of at least being able to debate 
these things in the open where they can have serious consideration." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake