Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, July 8, 1995 TAG: 9507100145
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
When Gov. George Allen pushed through his no-parole policy, its key provision - a lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key philosophy to protect society for as long as possible from violent, remorseless predators - was accompanied by a subclause: Less serious, nonviolent offenders would be diverted away from prisons into nontraditional rehabilitation programs. Without the latter, the former would be impossible.
The carefully thought-out Drug Court is one promising answer, an alternative to incarceration that goes beyond probation or suspended sentences. Holding out the prospect of future imprisonment as an incentive for staying clean does little to dull an addict's craving for his particular poison. Too often, the abstract possibility of future incarceration takes a back seat to the immediate, physical demands of the addiction. Continuing along their path of self-destruction, abusers sometimes take criminal turns that might have been avoided if they had been able to break the addiction.
The Drug Court will offer a chance to users or small-time dealers who sell drugs to support their own habits and who now want to be free not just of physical incarceration but also of the imprisonment of drug dependency. In exchange for a quick guilty plea, they can be placed in a one-year program of substance-abuse treatment, education, vocational training and counseling tailored to individual needs. They must report to the court at least once a week. If they complete the program, the charges against them will be dismissed.
Prosecutors have veto power over who can go to Drug Court; big-time dealers or anyone charged with a violent crime need not apply.
If a successful alum ends up in a productive life rather than back in court on increasingly more serious charges, taxpayers will have spent $3,000 or $4,000 for one year's rehabilitation program, compared with the $18,000 it costs to imprison someone for a year.
Drug addiction is not a hopeless problem. A similar court in Oakland, Calif., found that the rate of recidivism for participants in 1991 was almost half that of similar offenders who did not participate. Many of those who wanted to change their lives did change them.
Such good results, however, should not create unrealistic expectations. The recidivism rate was not zero. Even with close monitoring, drug education and training designed to give people the skills they need to succeed in the mainstream, some will go back to their old best friend - drugs. Taxpayers need to recognize and expect this, and not judge the program a failure if some individuals in it fail.
The program offers addicts a chance to beat their habit before landing in jail, where more than two-thirds of inmates need substance-abuse treatment. It would be much better for all concerned if help came before a crime is committed that lands an addict there.
Drug Court will convene in Roanoke in September, and in Roanoke County and Salem in January. Its effectiveness should be tracked over time, and the benefits weighed against the costs. But the court certainly deserves a fair trial.
by CNB