Ireland studies U.S. drug courts

By Patrick Markey

It’s Monday afternoon in Room 924 in the Brooklyn Supreme Court building and the weekend’s arrests are starting to filter through onto the desk of Erica Perel, the assistant district attorney at the Brooklyn Treatment Court.

Before Judge Yvonne Lewis this afternoon, a young man in bright white Nike sneakers and a green baseball shirt stands handcuffed behind the defending attorney’s desk. Perel, the defense attorney and the judge confer on the man’s case, while the defendant mumbles quietly to himself.

Perel checks the defendant’s drug-abuse history and criminal record on a court computer system and makes an offer — go back to jail and await trial or take a residential treatment program for the man’s drug addiction.

"He needs treatment, and he’s refusing," Perel said.

The defendant again refuses. But working on the recommendation of the treatment court’s specialist staff, who have evaluated the defendant’s addiction, Perel pushes for residential treatment. The defendant is taken away. He’ll have another chance to think about the offer before his next court appearance.

This is drug court, the program that offers non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems a chance to get help and to clear their records as an alternative to prison.

"This is the best deal in the court. You commit a felony. That felony gets dismissed, you get the help you need, you learn vocational skills and education. That’s not a bad deal," Perel said.

This month the Irish government is reviewing a report that recommends establishing a pilot U.S.-style drug court system in the Dublin District Court. Based on the recommendations of the Working Group on a Courts Commission, the government is considering a similar system and proposals could be released by the end of the year, a Justice Department spokesman said.

First established in 1989 in Dade County, Fla., which encompasses Miami, the American drug courts were born out of the a criminal justice system flooded with drug addicts who kept committing crimes and reappearing in courtrooms. Now more than 300 drug courts operate nationwide with approximately $35 million in federal government funding from the Justice Department, experts say.

Treatment, not incarceration

Drug courts work on the premise that for first-time, non-violent offenders with drug addictions, treatment is often better than simple incarceration. Offenders are given the choice of a court-mandated, heavily supervised treatment program in return for lesser charges and eventually a clean record if they graduate from the year-long program.

In a carrot-and-stick approach, offenders are rewarded for progress in their treatment and punished with sanctions for failure to met with the conditions in their "contract" with the court. Regular court dates, urine tests and other checks monitor the offender’s progress. Failure to complete the treatment, continuous lapses or committing a serious reoffense usually mean jail time.

According to Steven Belenko, a senior research associate at the National Center for Substance Abuse and Addiction, a New York-based policy research center on substance abuse, the courts have succeeded in cutting back on the number of reoffending addicts and in reducing addiction in offenders.

"What’s different with the drug courts and the regular criminal justice system is there is more of an understanding of the individual. Drug courts recognize that addiction is a chronic relapse disease, up to a certain point. I think defendants pick up on that and try a little harder," Belenko said.

Belenko recently published the first comprehension study of research into drug courts. Although the courts differ by state, Belenko’s study revealed that research into 24 drug courts had shown offenders stayed with drug programs longer, were much less likely to commit crimes once into the drug court program, and were better able to combat their particular addictions.

"Close supervision is the key to keeping people in treatment until they buy into the system. There is growing recognition that addiction is a disease and not just a moral failing," he said.

Although some critics still have concerns about releasing offenders into the community, Belenko estimates that 60-70 percent of offenders in drug court programs will stay in treatment, compared with closer to 30 percent for those who face regular criminal justice sanctions. Recidivism among those in the program also dropped significantly, he said.

"It’s not going to work for everyone, there will always be a proportion who are rearrested, who fail," Belenko said.

The Brooklyn site, where Perel works, has been in operation since June 1996 and is already one of the nation’s largest programs. It is also one of America’s mentor courts, used as a role model for other criminal justice officials looking to set up similar programs. More than 760 offenders have entered the program, and 3,100 have been screened for treatment in those two years.

After arrest, offenders here are given an initial evaluation and those that might be eligible for the treatment court are given that option: "This is immediate intervention. The arrest is taken as a moment of crisis," Perel said.

Working with the judge and the defense attorney, Perel will hammer out an offer based on the treatment recommendation of the court’s clinic staff. Most of those in the Brooklyn program are crack cocaine or heroin addicts. Some already have an arrest record, and for Perel its a judgment call on whether they should be offered the program.

"There are clearly cases that are not going into treatment," she said. Dealers and violent felons are not eligible.

"It requires teamwork, it requires trust. The defending attorney knows when its a good deal. I’m going to dismiss the case when you get your act together. Also, we know you’re going to slip and slide," she said.

Six levels of treatment

Offenders who enter the program are designated a band of treatment depending on the severity of their addiction, the crime and their past record. Band One treatment, the most lenient, requires the offender to take random urine tests, attend a program once a week, appear in court every six weeks and meet with case workers every month. At the other end of the scale is Band Six — residential treatment, the most extreme recommendation.

The Brooklyn site has addicts work through three phases until their graduation from the program. Those stages require them to record consecutive months free from drugs and from sanctions, to confront their problem and to make progress in stabilizing their life through education and employment. Seeing recovering addicts return to the court well-dressed and groomed and anxious to get to work is one of the job’s pleasure, Perel says.

"The reality of addiction is that you will relapse, you waiver. These people didn’t become addicts over night, they are not going to recover over night," Perel said.

The last case of Monday, a gangly teenager in baggy jeans stood before the defendants table as the Perel, the judge and his attorney conferred in front of him. In the public seats behind him, his parents waited for a decision.

The youth was already in Phase Three of the program, doing well, and on his way to graduation when he failed a random urine test and was caught with a bag of drugs inside the treatment facility he was attending.

Taking into consideration his good progress, Judge Lewis decided on four days incarceration as a measured sanction, rather than the recommended seven days: "Even though it is difficult for you. We don’t want to send the wrong message," she said.

Court officers placed the young man in handcuffs and took him out of the courtroom. In four days he’ll be back to have his case reevaluated.

"In reality, when he’s done here, he’ll have no criminal record," Perel said.