Pubdate: Thu, 25 Jul 2002
Source: Stamford Advocate, The (CT)
Copyright: 2002 Southern Connecticut Newspaper, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1522
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts)

END TO DRUG COURTS NEEDS SECOND LOOK

Along with state spending reductions required by a weak economy comes a lot 
of second-guessing. It centers on whether cutbacks deemed necessary in the 
short term will do harm and ultimately be more costly to Connecticut 
residents over time.

That can be a frustrating exercise, both for state officials doing what 
they think they must to reduce spending and for others who see some 
economies as instances of Connecticut shooting itself in the foot. However, 
discussion and debate about such matters can lead to adjustment of 
priorities and help Connecticut better recover from the current economic 
downturn.

One such area that we have touched on is the state's university and 
community college systems. There, educators have expressed the legitimate 
concern that the schools' ability to help provide the trained work force 
Connecticut companies need now and in the future will be hampered, 
especially if cutbacks in educational resources are continued beyond the 
current fiscal year.

Now, another area of concern has arisen with the announcement that the 
state Judicial Branch is closing its drug courts.

Those courts have been dealing with nonviolent drug offenders in 
Bridgeport, Waterbury, New Haven and Hartford. Through the system, 
offenders could be offered year-long drug treatment programs rather than 
jail time. Charges would be dropped for those who completed the program and 
stayed drug-free.

With the official shut-down of the program set for Aug. 1, judicial 
officials said about 170 offenders will be put back into the regular court 
system, where they may face prison time. This is occurring in the face of 
evidence suggesting that legal systems that punish, rather than treat, 
nonviolent drug users are counterproductive. Incarceration for drug use has 
been blamed for failing to address the root issue of addiction, for 
unfairly penalizing minority offenders and for burdening prison systems 
with inmates who do not need to be behind bars.

Judicial officials report that drug courts and similar alternative programs 
are more labor-intensive than standard court systems, and thus more costly. 
However, proponents point out that savings result elsewhere: Drug users can 
be diverted from more-serious crime and become productive members of 
society; meanwhile taxpayers are relieved of substantial financial burdens 
caused by a growing prison population. In Connecticut, prison overcrowding 
has required correction officials to pay for shipping out inmates for 
detention in other states.

In defense of the closure, Chief Court Administrator Joseph Pellegrino 
commented that the drug courts "may not be as successful as we may have 
thought." Such phrasing seems to lack conviction, and other officials 
involved in the program have praised it. So it may be the decision to end 
the program, no matter how effective it is, was viewed as necessary to help 
meet the Judicial System's avowed goals during these difficult times: "Keep 
our employees, not lay anyone off and deliver all the services required by 
the Constitution."

It was an unfortunate, perhaps costly, decision to have to make. It 
certainly is among those open to second-guessing. We urge state officials 
to reconsider the move, when feasible, to ensure that the need to cut 
spending in the short term in this case does not do lasting damage that 
will be regretted later.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth