Pubdate: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) Copyright: 2004 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Contact: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/408 Note: by the Seattle Post-intelligencer Editorial Board Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts) EXPAND SENSIBLE OPTION The Washington Supreme Court last week ruled unanimously, and quite sensibly, that defendants have no constitutional right to opt for drug court in lieu of a potential felony conviction. It's clear that when the Legislature allowed counties to establish drug courts, it did not mandate their creation. There was no merit to the argument that access to the drug court option is an entitlement. An excellent argument can be made, however, both that drug courts offer an economical alternative to prosecution and that treatment can ultimately diminish the drug dependency that figures in the criminal activity. The most expensive possible option is incarceration. It's expensive to taxpayers and to offenders. Not only are taxpayers saddled with room and board and 24-hour maintenance of non-violent offenders who can make no contribution to society behind bars, but also -- absent treatment -- a jail term is only a temporary detour on a journey of drug dependence and perhaps more crime to support that dependency. Drug courts are successful because they address the cause -- not just the results -- of offenders' behavior. They have demonstrated their success across the country, reducing recidivism, drug use and costs, says Donald P. Lay, the senior judge for the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's clear what the Legislature should do now: mandate and -- here's the crucial part -- fund them in all 39 counties. Offenders and taxpayers are entitled to a more sensible and less expensive drug prosecution policy. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D