Most of the countries of Europe have chosen to treat drug possession and use as a public health problem.  The U.S. has chosen to criminalize these activities.  I’m not getting into an argument about legalizing various drugs in our country.  But there have been some positive changes in the courts regarding the serious and tragic problem of drugs in the country.

Many jurisdictions have started Drug Courts.  My experience has been in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Prior to the establishment of Drug Court, even the possession of a small amount of illegal drugs meant the guilty person would either go to prison or, at least, spend some time in the workhouse.  Although drug treatment programs were offered, there wasn’t much of an incentive for the guilty people to participate.

Why not?

For people in prison, their release is not contingent on successfully completing treatment.  All that counts is the pre-determined release date—which is simply a function of time spent in prison.  For those on probation, treatment is often a condition of remaining out of jail.  Wouldn’t that create an incentive?

No.  There’s not much of an incentive to complete any treatment.  The defendant already has a permanent felony record and because the courts are so crowded, if the defendant doesn’t complete court-ordered treatment he probably won’t go back to prison anyway unless he commits a new offense.  If he stays out of trouble, the courts probably won’t take action.

The result is that addicted people get involved in the criminal justice system, go to prison without much rehabilitation, remain chemically addicted, and have a permanent felony record.  That makes it difficult to get a job, get housing, or even buy a car.  Their lives aren’t promising.

Drug Court recognizes these problems with the present system and works to avoid them by:

1.  After an arrest for a drug charge, the defendant’s case is moved from the normal criminal calendars to Drug Court.

2.  Prior to a trial or guilty plea, the defendant is assessed for treatment and offered programming if recommended.

3.  The defendant doesn’t go to jail or prison.

4.  The defendant enters a treatment program and is monitored by the court on a regular basis and encouraged to complete treatment.

5.  If the defendant successfully completes it, he will never go to prison, never have a permanent felony criminal record, and will have his case dismissed.

Drug Courts can never bring back people like Philip Seymour Hoffman.  Nor will they prevent the tragedies like his.  But for thousands of addicted people, Drug Court offers a wonderful opportunity to be cured of their addiction and become productive citizens.

The post Philip Seymour Hoffman–There is Still Hope appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Started in the 1970’s, the War on Drugs spawned a huge federal/state law enforcement apparatus that has taken on a life of its own.  Thousands of people are involved:  not only the obvious law enforcement people and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), but also all the prosecutors, judges, and Public Defenders across the country.  Then, once convicted, the defendants go to prison which has led the United States to the dubious ranking of one of the highest incarceration rates in the world!

Mr. Jones, in my opinion, is making the correct choice.

I have worked for over 30 years as both a county prosecutor and Public Defender.  Although, I’ve not worked in federal court, the local state courts still handle more drug-related cases than the feds.  I can tell you that in all these years, very few “drug kingpins” have ever been convicted.  The majority of drug offenders are low-level users who may sell in order to meet their habit.  Even at the federal level, I doubt the convictions are of many high-level drug lords.  

Mr. Jones’ office has the resources to go after more complex crime–and he should do so.  The state courts will still prosecute the drug offenders.

What’s going on in the war on drugs?  At the state court level, the largest county in Minnesota has started something called “Drug Court.”  Instead of automatically jailing drug offenders, several rehabilitation efforts are offered to the accused.  If they successfully overcome their addiction, their cases may be dismissed.  Of course, if they fail, they must proceed with their criminal cases.  In spite of ever-onerous sentences for drug possession/sale, the state courts have effectively circumvented these draconian penalties by allowing drug offenders to clean themselves up and get out of the criminal justice system.

Did you know that some of the toughest sentences in the country are for federal drug offenders?  Has it made a difference in the drug problem in the U.S?  Did you know that the majority of inmates in federal prisons are not there for violent or white-collar crimes, but are there, instead, for low-level drug offenses?  Has this approach decreased the drug problem in the U.S?

I don’t think so.

Another issue that Mr. Jones may be considering is that the federal prison population is made-up almost entirely of African-American drug users.  Many people in the black community view this as a modern day extension of slavery because of the ultimate effect of all the federal drug laws–that act to imprison an inordinately high percentage of the African-American community.

Should the War on Drugs be declared over so we can “bring our troops home?”  Let me know what you think.

The post Is the War on Drugs Over?? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.