Pubdate: Thu, 29 Oct 2015
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2015 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Stephen V. Manley
Note: Stephen V. Manley is a Superior Court judge in Santa Clara 
County. He was a founder of the Drug Treatment Court in Santa Clara 
County as well as the Santa Clara County Mental Health Treatment Court.

DRUG COURTS, NOW

Enrollment in drug courts is declining. Perhaps treatment should be a 
requirement for addicts, rather than an option.

In the year since California voters approved Proposition 47, there 
has been a flurry of speculation about the future of drug courts in 
this state. Proposition 47 reduced the majority of drug and property 
offenses in California from felonies to misdemeanors, meaning that 
many offenders no longer face the possibility of state prison. 
Critics have suggested that removing the heavy stick of incarceration 
necessarily makes drug courts less effective.

It's true that, under Proposition 47, enrollment in some drug courts 
has dropped. This is not surprising. After all, eligibility for many 
drug courts requires a felony conviction, and participation is optional.

However, this trend doesn't mean we need to throw up our hands or 
scrap Proposition 47. On the contrary, it suggests that drug courts 
should adapt, as they have before, to the new order. Because 
Proposition 47 has downgraded most drug offenses, drug courts should 
accept those convicted of misdemeanors. Misdemeanors still carry a 
maximum sentence of one year in jail, more than enough to serve as a 
disincentive.

Not all existing drug courts work exclusively with felons. Many in 
California and elsewhere, including my own, already work with 
lower-level offenders who cannot be sent to state prison. Even when 
participation is not a prison alternative but merely a required term 
of probation, drug courts are effective.

A recent report by the Judicial Council found that reentry drug court 
participants in California who faced a maximum of six months in jail 
for their violations had their parole revoked less often and 
ultimately spent significantly less time in prison than a comparison group.

Even without adapting, drug courts can do a lot of good. Drug courts, 
remember, frequently work with felons who commit crimes other than 
drug possession - addiction is a common factor in many crimes - and 
are therefore unaffected by Proposition 47. And Proposition 47 
certainly has not reduced these programs' ability to assist offenders 
who enter treatment. Success stems from positive reinforcement and 
motivation, not the hammer of incarceration.

In 2008, the Urban Institute found as many as 1.2 million addicted 
individuals in the criminal justice system. In 2013, 60% of adult 
males booked into jails across the country tested positive for drugs, 
regardless of the offense. Overreliance on incarceration contributed 
to the failure of the war on drugs. In drug court, we understand that 
addiction is a chronic condition with a high risk of relapse. The 
proper response to relapse is more treatment, not prison.

There's a common misconception that drug courts serve only casual 
drug abusers. Actually, research indicates that drug courts are most 
effective when serving serious addicts - individuals who are at the 
highest risk of committing new offenses and have the highest need for 
treatment (substance abuse or mental health), services (such as 
housing, employment and education), supervision by probation officers 
and ongoing monitoring by a judge.

By passing Proposition 47, California did not intend to ignore 
substance abuse. The public recognizes that while it is imperative 
that we reduce the prison population, we must also provide treatment 
to those who need it. After a year, we can probably all agree that 
while there has been an initial decline in prison and some jail 
populations, too many serious addicts are not receiving the treatment 
they need to permanently change their behavior.

But if critics of Proposition 47 are truly concerned about the future 
of drug courts, there's a better way to funnel offenders into 
treatment than going back to the way things were. That's to get rid 
of the big-stick sanction method and simply reform sentencing policy 
so that treatment is a requirement for addicts, not an option.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom