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