Drug courts and newer alternatives

When it comes to the law and Californians using intoxicating drugs without committing harm against others, we have for years argued for a health-centered approach instead of using the ineffective and wildly expensive criminal justice system and the hellis

Even when it comes to diverting those accused of drugrelated crimes who are sent into special drug courts, we have long agreed with the Justice Policy Institute, which advocates for limiting drug courts to those for whom prison truly is the alternative.

Investment in communitybased drug treatment programs is absolutely preferable to just focusing on drug courts, even though the latter are better than sending drug users into the maze of the regular courts.

Last year, as Nigel Duara reports this month for CalMatters, “Yolo County tried an experiment: No one arrested for simple drug possession would be prosecuted or sent to drug court. Instead, those arrested with drugs were directed to the county health department. The county was responding to a trend across California: Significantly fewer people are choosing to go to drug court, in part because the penalties for drug possession were reduced by the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014.”

That's because: “Without the threat of potential jail time, people just weren't showing up — participation in Yolo County's drug court is down 86% since 2014. `What I was trying to do was test the hypothesis that this was solely a health issue,' said the plan's architect, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig. `It was a total failure.' ”

It's a conundrum. While it's a good thing that California was on the cutting edge of diversion from the traditional justice system — the first drug courts were set up in Alameda County in 1991 — there is no denying that the separate good of the people's passage of Prop. 47 eight years ago has lessened the impetus to participate in them.

The New York-based Center for Court Innovation, CalMatters reports, found that California

drug courts after the passage of Prop. 47 saw that participation was down statewide by 67% between 2014 and 2018.

So the Yolo DA is doing the right thing to deal with the situation. He's calling his approach drug court 2., and is expanding the number of drug crimes that can be eligible for diversion programs. His new program requires that participants actually meet with a representative from the county health department while still in the justice system — in order to get out of it.

“It's having a lot more success than the phone calls did,” Reisig said.

This, after fewer than 12% of those who were called by the drug courts even bothered to respond to telephone messages.

We like the optimistic approach with which this smaller county is dealing with a perceived problem that may be better seen as an opportunity. It recognizes that Prop. 47 has reduced recidivism rates and consequently saved taxpayers a lot of money, and that drug courts too, when operating correctly, reduce recidivism, and also save us money.

One court official reporter Duara talked to, who spoke anonymously because he wasn't authorized to speak with the media, called the situation of drug courts throughout California a kind of “Wild West,” with little real data about how effective they are, and some counties declining to even report the numbers of people involved in the system. Not having the numbers makes it hard to know how their version of reform is working for our society. Clearly, they still have a place, though. And equally clearly, newer alternatives in local health-based counseling as opposed to mere incarceration are worth taking a look at for a better California for all its citizens.