Pubdate: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB) Section: Lifestyle; Page 39 Copyright: 2001, Canoe Limited Partnership. Contact: #250, 4990-92 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6B 3A1 Canada Fax: (780) 468-0139 Website: http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonSun/ Forum: http://www.canoe.ca/Chat/home.html Author: Mindelle Jacobs, Edmonton Sun Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n369/a04.html Cited: The Lindesmith Center - Drug Policy Foundation http://www.drugpolicy.org/ THE DEAL ON DRUG COURTS In the beginning, veteran prosecutor Kofi Barnes, who oversees Toronto's drug court, was predictably cynical about the idea that drug offenders could be successfully diverted from jail to treatment. He'd met too many con artists to believe that one. Seen too many people who promised to get into treatment if only the judge would give them a break. The next thing you knew, they were back before the court because of another petty offence committed to feed their drug habit. Barnes kept seeing the same people in court over and over again. "I just didn't see how (a drug court) could possibly work," he recalls. That was a couple of years ago. Now, Barnes describes himself as a "reformed skeptic." It's early days yet. Canada's only drug court is only two years old but already the results are encouraging. Of the 36 people who chose drug treatment over jail and completed the program, only one has ended up back before the courts. We're talking chronic non-violent offenders here - addicts who have repeatedly ended up in jail for possession or trafficking. One woman, a longtime coke addict and trafficker with a rap sheet several pages long, was in treatment for 12 months and is now juggling both school and work. "I'm no longer skeptical," says Barnes, who is now involved in plans to expand drug courts across the country. Mind you, court diversion alone isn't a panacea for our drug-addled society. About 30 other people who agreed to mandatory treatment to avoid jail couldn't completely stay off drugs. (As well as completing an addiction program, participants are required to stay clean for four to six months, find drug-free housing, get a job or sign up for retraining.) Rather than pack them off to jail, though, officials recognized that this group needed more comprehensive care. They were given conditional sentences that included probation and extended treatment. The hope is that with close monitoring, they, too, will turn the corner. Another couple of dozen people have been expelled from treatment for non-compliance and sent to jail. But with the success stories, the key is not so much random urine testing as it is intensive supervision. Toronto's drug court, for example, works closely with an advisory committee of 50 social agencies ready to help addicts. Despite the failures, Toronto's drug court certainly beats the alternative. Jailing addicts has simply perpetuated the cycle of drug abuse and crime, so Justice Minister Anne McLellan's recent announcement that drug courts will be set up in all major Canadian cities by 2004 is welcome news. In 1996, almost 10% of adult Canadian prisoners were in jail for a drug offence as their most serious crime. And Alberta had the highest percentage of drug offenders in provincial jails (17%) that year. What are addicts going to do in jail? Use more drugs, of course. We could do worse than study what's been done with drug courts in the U.S. over the past decade - emulating their successes and avoiding their mistakes. The drug court experience in the U.S. has been a mixed bag, according to observers at the New York-based Lindesmith Centre, a drug policy foundation. On the positive side, there's a high success rate among those channelled through drug courts, so it's obviously better than jail, they say. On the other hand, U.S. district attorneys tend to cherry-pick offenders who have the greatest chance of success, so hardcore addicts are ignored, the Lindesmith analysts believe. Also, judges rely too much on coercion - tossing addicts in jail for up to two weeks if they can't kick drugs right away. "Judges don't understand that relapse is part of being addicted to drugs," says Lindesmith spokesman Dan Abrahamson. Nevertheless, it's been shown that drug courts substantially reduce offenders' criminal behaviour and substance abuse. Also, they say it saves gobs of money. So let's get on with it. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake