Drug Courts

The Huffington Post has published an article by Gen. Barry McCaffrey about the very hopeful future of drug courts. We discussed the Seattle program once before, but now the General is talking about the promising national picture since the Obama administration is on board with this.

The verdict is in on Drug Courts. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Drug Courts work. Drug Courts significantly reduce drug abuse and crime and do so at less expense than any other justice strategy.

That is why the historic 1994 Biden Crime Bill authorized $1 billion for the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program, administered by the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. The intent of the Biden Crime Bill at the time was to expand Drug Court funding to $200 million annually by the year 2000. Unfortunately the DOJ federal appropriation has averaged only $40 million and saw its lowest level in 2006 at a mere $10 million.

But the attitude in Washington is changing. Earlier this year, Congress approved $64 million for Drug Courts; the highest federal appropriation for the program in its 20 year history, with another $118 million earmarked for 2010.

Drug Courts need $250 million per year for the next six years--essentially as was originally envisioned in the Crime Bill -- in order to put a Drug Court within reach of the 1.2 million adult offenders who need it and to truly begin to heal America's number one social problem...addiction.

What Will be the Return on the Investment?

A $250 million annual Federal investment would reap staggering savings, with an estimated annual return of as much as $840 million in net benefits from avoided criminal justice costs alone and another 2.2 billion in savings to our communities. A $250 million annual Federal investment would also substantially reduce the demand for illicit drugs and enable state and local governments to cease over-relying on expensive and ineffective prison sentences for nonviolent, addicted offenders.

What's your opinion? Is this one area where the Obama administration might be making significant improvements? Do you agree with General McCaffrey that "America's number one social problem" is addiction? Do you agree that locking addicts up is not the solution?

Please leave a comment.

The War on Drugs Goes Underwater

The New York Times Magazine published a fascinating article on the new face of Cocaine smuggling - semi-submersible submarines.

This kind of vessel — a self-propelled, semisubmersible made by hand in the jungles of Colombia — is no longer quite so mythic: four were intercepted in January alone. But because of their ability to elude radar systems, these subs are almost impossible to detect; only an estimated 14 percent of them are stopped. And perhaps as many as 70 of them will be made this year, up from 45 or so in 2007, according to a task-force spokesman. Made for as little as $500,000 each and assembled in fewer than 90 days, they are now thought to carry nearly 30 percent of Colombia’s total cocaine exports.

How they came up with that 14% figure must be an interesting story, but the point is clear. Submarine trafficking is here to stay. Given the government's difficulty in accurately reporting numbers, there must be hundreds, if not thousands of subs actively working. I would say this is another indication that the War on Drugs is a lost effort. The criminals are smarter than the cops, once again.

Naturally, the government's resources are not adequate to the job at hand.

Catching, let alone spotting, the drug subs is difficult. The Naval Intelligence officer compared it to patrolling the entire country as a sheriff with three cars. “So if there’s someone in Texas holding up a 7-Eleven, and somebody’s in Baltimore mugging somebody,” he said, “you have to move.”

The cocaine packed inside provides a built-in ballast, giving the boats, which are painted the color of the ocean, about a foot of freeboard above the surface. With little or no steel, the fiberglass-and-wood boats have a low radar signature. Some semisubs use lead pads to shield the hot engines from the military’s infrared sensors.

What do you think? Is the War on Drugs a waste of money and manpower? Is there something wrong with the basic idea of prohibiting certain drugs while allowing others, e.g. alcohol and tobacco? Why is it so difficult to even decriminalize substances like marijuana, let alone legalizing, and let along heavier drugs?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

R. Gil Kerlikowske, New Drug Czar

The Washington Post reports on the appointment of the new Drug Czar. Seattle Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske will head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In a clear departure from the Bush Administration's approach, treatment instead of incarceration will be part of the new plan.

Chief Kerlikowske said "it's an incredibly complex problem." Formerly the focus was on cutting the supply of illicit drugs from foreign countries; now it will be on curbing drug use in communities across the United States.

"The success of our efforts to reduce the flow of drugs is largely dependent on our ability to reduce demand for them," Kerlikowske said yesterday at a ceremony attended by his former law enforcement colleagues. "Our nation's drug problem is one of human suffering, and as a police officer but also in my own family, I have experienced the effects that drugs can have."

Kerlikowske's adult stepson, Jeffrey, has been arrested in the past on drug charges, an issue that the police chief referenced in his remarks yesterday.

During the campaign, President Obama promised to offer first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentences in a drug rehabilitation center rather than in prison. With this initiative, the administration will be embracing an idea that has broad support in theory but has yet to be widely practiced. What do you think? Is this part of the solution? Certainly this would ease the prison overpopulation problem, but would it produce better results with regards to reducing the demand for drugs in America?

What about the question of personal responsibility? Isn't a lot of this policy based upon the idea that drug addicts are less culpable for their actions simply because they're addicted? Is that a problem? Does it undermine the foundation of holding people to a standard of personal behaviour? If the addict gets a break, say treatment instead of prison, does that somehow harm the non-addicted offender who has to do jail time? Is that what the responsibility demanders are upset about, that it's not fair?

What's your opinion?

First Marijuana Citation in Massachusetts

The Boston Globe reports on the first citation issued for possession of marijuana since the voters decided it should be decriminalized. This particular case involved other drugs, however.

A Holyoke man could be the first person in Massachusetts cited for possession of marijuana, an action that lost its criminal status Friday because voters approved a decriminalization referendum in November. However, 29-year-old Jose Burgos could still face prison time on charges of trafficking cocaine and possession of a Class A substance with intent to distribute.

I find it a bit funny that the first guy to "benefit" from the new law won't benefit at all. The actual practical application of the law is yet to be worked out. In theory it'll be much like a traffic citation.

Sergeant Richard Perry of the Bellingham Police Department said officers expect to issue tickets for possession, but have not worked out the logistics.

"I can tell you that they're working on how we would fine the person," Perry said. "So right now it would be pretty much the way most departments are handling it: We'd confiscate [the marijuana] and identify the person and send them on their way."

Under the marijuana decriminalization law, offenders who are caught with an ounce or less of marijuana get a ticket for a civil violation, but are not criminally charged. Juveniles have to pay the $100 fine and attend a drug abuse counseling course, or the fine will be increased to $1,000.

What do you think about that? Should we be concerned that it sends the wrong message to young people? What about other drugs? If they are in small enough quantities to indicate personal use, shouldn't they be handled this way too? What about out and out legalization? Wouldn't that allow for better control and taxation? We talked about that before.

What's your opinion?

Drug Courts are Saving Addicts from Prison

The New York Times ran a story today about the drug courts that are not sending addicts to prison but into treatment programs instead.

In Seattle, as in drug courts across the country, the stern face of criminal justice is being redrawn, and emotions are often on the surface. Experts say drug courts have been the country’s fastest-spreading innovation in criminal justice, giving arrested addicts a chance to avoid prison by agreeing to stringent oversight and addiction treatment. Recent studies show drug courts are one of the few initiatives that reduce recidivism — on average by 8 percent to 10 percent nationally and as high as 26 percent in New York State — and save taxpayer money.

I'm always sceptical about these types of statistics, but in spite of the self-serving promotion, I think it might be true. Time spent in prison rarely contributes towards rehabilitation. Perhaps the only hope for addicts is something like this. Instead of spending time with other criminals, they would spend that time with other addicts trying to stay clean. Maybe it's all about peer pressure.

What do you think? Can addicted people ever really change? Do you think the problem with the old way is that it was not harsh enough?

Since the first drug court began work, in Miami in 1989, the idea has spread to more than 2,100 courtrooms in every state, though they still take in only a small fraction of addicted criminals. Offenders, usually caught in low-level dealing or stealing to support their addictions, volunteer for 9 to 18 months or more of intrusive supervision by a judge, including random urine testing, group therapy and mandatory sobriety meetings.

Let us know your opinion.

Preppie Killer get 19 Years

Yesterday the news hit that Robert Chambers, the so-called Preppie Killer, was sentenced to 19 years for selling coke to an undercover policeman and resisting arrest. We discussed his case before on Wordpress.

CNN reports that the 41-year-old Chambers pleaded guilty in exchange for the 19 years. The alternative was to face life in prison due to New York State's tough drug laws.

Chambers, now 41, became tabloid fodder in 1986 after the death of Jennifer Levin, an 18-year-old graduate of the exclusive Baldwin School, during a tryst in Central Park. The slaying made headlines as a story of a handsome, privileged prep school youth gone bad.

Chambers pleaded guilty in 1988 to manslaughter and was released from prison in 2003 after serving the maximum 15 years because of discipline problems behind bars, including dealing drugs.

What it amounts to is that Chambers was sentenced more harshly for selling coke and resisting arrest than he was for killing his girlfriend in Central Park. Something is wrong with that if you ask me. I know it's a complex problem, what to do with a guy like this, but this just isn't working for him and many others like him. In prison they get worse, not better. What kind of person will he be when he's released at 60 years of age?

What's your opinion?