Among dozens of policy briefs presented by President Joe Biden is one on criminal justice reform promoting drug courts rather than prison for certain federal drug charges. The brief also endorses drug courts at the state level, as well as alternatives to detention for people with substance use disorders.
“Biden believes that no one should be imprisoned for the use of illegal drugs alone,” the policy document reads. “Instead, Biden will require federal courts to divert these individuals to drug courts so they receive treatment to address their substance use disorder.”
This is an approach I support as a humane response to our country’s addiction crisis because the interplay between addiction and criminal behavior has led to incarceration of, rather than treatment for, people suffering from a disease.
Over time jails have responded to the reality of the needs of the people within their facilities by offering drug treatment and counseling to help addicted persons. But that transformation can — and whenever possible should — take place outside jail and prison walls. Jail is not a long-term solution to substance misuse.
In addition to our DA office’s diversion of drug cases out of the criminal justice system and into treatment programs, I believe drug courts give individuals another way to turn their lives around.
Often referred to as treatment courts, they are an option for those for whom substance misuse may have contributed to significant criminal involvement, possibly even a life of crime. Treatment courts are intensive and personal. They offer a carefully monitored approach in which participants receive addiction treatment (which could be inpatient or community-based group and individual therapy) and recovery coaching, as well as drug testing, probation check-ins, and weekly meetings with the judge for a period of up to two years.
State courts within the Northwestern district attorney’s office jurisdiction have been offering substance abuse treatment as an alternative to incarceration for years. Treatment courts in Greenfield and Orange district courts, operating for over two decades, were among the pioneers of drug courts in Massachusetts. Last February, under the eye of Judge Maureen Walsh, Northampton District Court opened a treatment court that now serves Hampshire County.
In one recent session of the Northampton District Court Treatment Court, Judge Walsh reminded a participant who had recently relapsed of his progress. “You should be feeling proud,” she said. “I appreciate the hard work you put into your recovery.”
She knew each participant, making note of their weekly written reflections and applauding their efforts. “I read with interest your relapse prevention plan and I’m looking forward to seeing you at the next treatment court meeting,” she said to another participant.
To another, she said: “I’m thrilled on behalf of the treatment court, you’ve done wonderfully. You are such a more healthy version of you than when I first met you.”
Drug courts are not easy. That’s by design. Facing addiction is no easy task. “This is a marathon, not a sprint,” Judge Walsh reminded one participant. To someone who had just enrolled, she offered a welcome and some advice: “In the end, this will succeed or not because of the effort you put into it.”
Involvement in drug courts is always voluntary. Requirements are intentionally rigorous, but help and guidance are plentiful too, based on the idea that people may be on the brink of turning the corner into long term recovery with the proper support.
In addition to these treatment courts, the regional Veterans Treatment Court operating out of Holyoke District Court and serving veterans from Hampshire, Franklin and Hampden counties, offers a path to treatment for veterans for whom substance misuse or mental health issues led them into criminal conduct.
Opened in 2015 under the guidance of Judge Laurie McLeod, the Veterans Court works with a multidisciplinary team to provide veterans with services that meet mental health and substance misuse needs as well as assistance on gaining stable housing and employment, which are essential for people in recovery.
Some studies suggest treatment courts have only a moderate impact on recidivism rates. Critics argue that the choice between incarceration and treatment court is a false choice because it’s no choice.
Obviously, that’s one way to look at it. However, if someone is facing incarceration for a crime related to their addiction, isn’t it better to have treatment as an option? Isn’t it better to have a judge know your name, to encourage your recovery by expressing pride and encouragement?
It’s an alternative to incarceration for people who may have reached their last straw.
Treatment courts are not the only strategy employed in this public health crisis. They are one more tool in the toolbox, a potential path to help people be sober, crime-free, and thriving.
A person’s participation in drug court may be the fifth or sixth chance they get to turn their lives around, and may very well be the one that takes root. That, to me, is reason enough to support our drug courts.
David Sullivan is the Northwestern district attorney serving Hampshire and Franklin counties and the Worcester County town of Athol, and part of the Hampshire HOPE opioid prevention coalition.