October 13,
2009
Keep drug courts -- they're effective
by
Dr. Douglas Marlowe, Chief of Science, Law and Policy, NADCP
The
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers chooses to attack our
nation's most successful justice intervention for substance abusing
offenders: drug courts (Cynthia Orr, Sept. 29 Other Views column,
Rethink how we fight drugs).
It minimizes the impact of drug
courts like the one in Miami-Dade, which has restored more than 12,000
lives and reunited tens of thousands of family members. NACDL only
begrudgingly accepts drug courts as an interim improvement over the war
on drugs until decriminalization is accomplished.
Two decades of
research have proven that drug courts reduce crime, reduce drug abuse
and save considerable money for taxpayers. The most conservative
estimate is that every $1 invested in drug courts reaps between $2 to $3
in direct cost-savings to society.
Between 50 percent and 80
percent of all crimes are committed by substance abusers. NACDL'S
assertion that drug courts are only treating low-level offenders is
patently false. The majority of drug courts now treat serious offenders
who have failed repeatedly in treatment and other dispositions.
NACDL
recommends that drug courts treat high-risk offenders who would
otherwise be in jail or prison bound in programs that do not require a
guilty plea for entry.
But this would mean that serious and
potentially violent offenders would face no legal repercussions
whatsoever if they failed to complete treatment or even to attend it.
When we consider the safety of our communities such recommendations
cannot be taken seriously.