Criminal Justice Policy Coalition
Mental Health and Drug Court
Whitney Taylor of the Drug Policy Forum moderated a panel on Mental Health and Drug Courts. Judge Robert Ziemian of the Boston Municipal Court Department, who has created eight drug courts in Massachusetts, began with a brief history of the development of drug courts. Initiated in Florida in 1989 under then Attorney General Janet Reno, there are now 1600 drug courts throughout the country. In Massachusetts, there are some 20 in existence with another four in development. In both New York and New Jersey, the legislature and/or the court systems have mandated such courts in every jurisdiction.
Judge Zieman and Sonya Pence, a defense attorney, who works with the Cambridge Drug Court, described the functioning of these courts in Massachusetts. These courts function in a more informal, less adversarial manner than normal courts. The judge, probation officer, prosecutor, and defense counsel work together to find a non-incarceration solution for those charged with drug offenses. Overall, the program has been successful; its participants have a 17% rate of recidivism compared with the 50% recidivism rate of those incarcerated in criminal courts. In order to receive federal funds, these programs require that those under indictment who are referred to the drug court not have prior violent criminal records; Judge Ziemian firmly believes that the greatest success rate would occur with those who have long histories of recidivism replete with violence and frequently finds ways to work around the federal restriction. The recommending of certain individuals indicted to the drug courts come from judges, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. The individual is required to plead guilty to the charge, and thereupon commit to an eighteen month program of treatment. This includes weekly court appointments, where the individual “checks in” to report his/her progress in the treatment prescribed.
Judge Maurice Richardson, a professor at the Center for Mental Health Services Research at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, spoke to his current experiences of working to establish the state’s first mental health court, modeled after a Broward County, Florida court that began processing cases in 1997. Mental health courts function similarly to drug courts. One major difference is that the clients are for the most part accused of nonviolent offenses, which is not the case with drug offenders. Therefore the range of sentences for the offenses charge often include no incarceration. (In the case of drug offenses, even non-violent offenders can face very long sentences as a result of mandatory minimum sentencing and the war on drugs.)
Judge Richardson invited Stan Goldman, a defense attorney in the audience who has trained many attorneys working in these specialized courts, to talk about the process from their clients’ perspective. Mr. Goldman, while recognizing the advantages of these programs, noted the following flaws: a) clients must plead guilty before services are provided; if housing is not available; b) clients must agree to incarceration until placement is possible; c) there is a lack of privileged conferencing for the client and his/her court ordered clinician; and d) the questionable short term benefit to clients who, if they choose criminal court even with a finding of guilty may be free of any government oversight well before the mental health court allows a client to go without supervision. Finally, some question exists over what constitutes success for the treatment modalities used by the court.
Regardless, the three panelists lauded the program’s high rate of success, seen through clients who have reconstructed productive lives. Much of the success is the result the court system working collaboratively with the treatment and recovery communities. Unfortunately, there remains much skepticism from prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and probation officers who haven’t invested the time to understand the program’s dynamics, and the general population still stigmatizes people with drug-offense records. The state has yet to recover from the shortsighted treatment facility closings last decade, and until these major mistakes are corrected, dealing with addiction and mental illness will continue to be more costly than it should be for both the state and those who carry the burden of addiction or mental illness.