The theory of drug court is that some persons committing
crimes, such as burglary, hot check writing, or theft, may do so in
support of an out-of-control substance habit. Such a person might even
be said not to be in complete control of his or her reasoning capacities
at the time of the crime. Such a person might also be very likely to
resume addictive and anti-social behavior as soon as jail time ends. The
rationale, then, is to address the root cause of the crime by providing
for addiction treatment, which not only helps prevent future crime by
removing the need to steal, but also offers a "sick"
(addicted) person the tools through which to build a healthier and more
productive life.
Recognizing that substance abuse is more rightly viewed as a health
issue rather than as a criminal justice issue is an important step in
the right direction for public policy. But not all substance use is
substance abuse. If it were, persons having a glass of wine with dinner
would be regarded in the same light as a person who drinks a six-pack
before noon or a person who has lost family and career as a result of
alcohol abuse. Drug policy reformers have long argued that private,
consensual behavior - whether drinking alcohol or taking drugs - should
not, in and of itself, be considered a crime.
Several thorny issues arise around the question of drug courts.
There is the argument that if a person commits a crime, they should
do the time, no matter what their excuse. Should a person breaking and
entering your home to steal your property be processed through drug
court because he had been under the influence of alcohol or
methamphetamine? Should we be willing to allow an appropriately
structured judicial and clinical process to make that determination?
There is the argument that a free society must remain wary of any
compulsory treatment. Accepted practice for alcohol addiction is to
allow a person to choose to get help. Treatment options for alcohol
abuse are readily available and hold relatively little stigma. Programs
offer education and ongoing support.
Contrast this to compulsory drug treatment programs, where a person is
forced into treatment under threat of imprisonment when their only crime
is the use of particular substance. We must be careful to define the
appropriate circumstances (if any) which would trigger legal
intervention in private behavior. Laws which criminalize drug use,
especially a mild, non-addictive drug such as marijuana, should not
serve as a tool by which taxpayer-funded state programs funnel vast
numbers of people into compulsory behavior modification which may
include the use of mind-altering and/or addictive prescription drugs.
Government must allow people to make their own choices unless there
is compelling evidence that their choices directly and adversely impact
other people. Even in cases where such evidence is present, as is the
case for tobacco addicts in sidestream smoke causing cancer, and for
alcohol addicts in affects on family members, society has chosen to
allow those persons to make their choices about seeking treatment. We
can encourage people to make better choices by empowering at risk youth
with better nutrition, improved educational opportunities and job
training, and other tools by which they might obtain the "good
life."
We cannot turn away from the promise offered by drug court.
Statistics show that people whose lives have become out of control
respond well to treatment. For some, treatment seems impossible without
the nudge of a court order. With prisons overflowing, Arkansas needs
viable alternatives to incarceration. Drug court is an important
alternative.
But finally, we as a society must accept the fact that some among us
will struggle with lives of less than ideal circumstances. When we have
assured ourselves that public policy offers every possible aid and
intervention available through families, neighborhoods, and
institutions, we must then be willing to allow others the freedom to
live dissolute lives - providing of course that they do not violate the
rights of others. A man should be free to be a drunk. He should not be
free to be drunk while driving.
When such violations occur in spite of our best efforts, drug
court included, then in good conscience we can lock up those who harm us
and throw away the key.