Posts Tagged ‘drug courts’
Posted on: April 30th, 2012 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
And while we’re at it, let’s also talk about prevention, addictions and compassion.
I suppose you’re wondering, where am I going with all of this? Well, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council recently held the 34th Annual Justice Dinner, an awareness-raising event about local justice issues. Our guest was The Honourable Justice Kofi Barnes, who started the very first Drug Treatment Court in 1998 in Toronto.
I was expecting a chronology and history about the initiation and implementation of the first Drug Treatment Court. However, I found myself leaning in a bit closer when Justice Barnes told his own personal story – how he was handed the task of finding alternative ways of dealing with the revolving door of people in courts and corrections who clearly had underlying addictions or mental health issues. Admittedly, fueled, in part, by a desire to preserve his career, and in part inspired by his own father, Justice Barnes spent 4 years developing an alternative ‘problem solving court’ which, 14 years later, has grown to more than 10 drug treatment and mental health courts in Canada.
What struck me most was Justice Barnes’ insistence that we need to move beyond our narrow view of ‘justice’ as ‘the letter of the law’ in every case. Rather, ‘justice’ must find a balance for the person who has committed a crime, the victim and our community as a whole. Rightly, he claims that it serves none of these if we never deal with the root cause of a problem. Regular Smart on Crime guest blogger Frank Johnson, put it this way:
“Drug treatment and mental health treatment courts are two approaches where the particular needs of individuals that may have contributed to criminal behaviour are addressed in a supportive yet accountable environment. In these courts the emphasis is on preserving the dignity of those involved with crime by holding them accountable while providing them with the tools to make changes in their lives, where change is possible. This is a recognition that a ‘cookie-cutter’ approach to justice has not and will not reduce crime or the recidivism rate. It makes social and economic sense, as the more alternatives to prison we create, the more benefit we see to taxpayers by reducing the costs of crime.”
Justice Barnes admits that he had a hard time convincing his colleagues in the courts, corrections and law enforcement communities that this approach could work. But gradually, as people from these systems had opportunities to participate in the alternative processes and saw the humanity present there, they became easy converts.
Justice Barnes’ story of personal connection and the potential for system change has stuck with me now for days. In fact, it reminded me of this Ted Talk by Bryan Stevenson “We need to talk about an injustice“. While Stevenson is a lawyer in the southern United States and daily confronts the issue of race in the U.S Criminal Justice system, the parallels between his talk and that of Justice Barnes is not lost on me.
They both believe in the need for justice that is based on hope and tied to dignity and compassion. They both believe that each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done. They both believe that each of us has a basic fundamental human dignity that must be respected by law. They both believe that our whole community is made stronger when we use smart on crime approaches that address the greatest injustices.
While it’s the more challenging place to be and to work, it will ultimately make us more human. And isn’t that what we should all be working for?
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about the Honourable Justice Barnes’ talk at the Justice Dinner. What has stuck with you? What inspired you or challenged you? Let us know.
In the meantime, watch the talk from Bryan Stevenson.
Posted on: December 14th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
For awhile, this past weekend, I thought I was in a parallel universe. Something wasn’t making sense. I was reading an article in The Record about the drug treatment court that was launched several months ago to work with those whose addictions have led them to commit crimes. The article was about graduation day for the first group of offenders who began the alternative program back in February 2011. Dianne Wood from The Record wrote a ‘good news’ story celebrating not only the work of the offenders in turning their lives around, but also the work done by the Crown, police, social workers and various support agencies. Judge Colin Westman, who operates the court with crown prosecutors Kathleen Nolan and Lynette Fritzley had this to say, “This should be a statement to the justice system. There are ways other than punishment to help (people) turn their lives around. It’s more frequently done with love than punishment.” I had to read that more than once to ensure I hadn’t missed something.
As I read his words and other laudatory comments by the Crown attorneys I couldn’t help think about Bill C-10. This innovative drug court approach, according to Wood, receives no financial support from the federal government, unlike six other drug courts operating in Canada. Their approach, combining respect and support for the offender, while not excusing the crime nor forgoing punishment, seems to be in stark contrast to the “tough on crime” stance evident in the new Bill C-10 legislation. Their approach starts with the offender, putting the crime in the context of their lives, their struggles with addiction and their hopes and plans to turn things around. In doing so it has a better chance of matching the offender’s addiction issues with the support networks that will allow them the opportunity to get clean and stay clean. Will all succeed? No, according to one of the Crowns who helped develop the program. But, considering the cost of incarceration (approximately $75,000 annually) and the fact that it pulls people from families, homes, jobs and education, one wonders why this approach wouldn’t be the norm. Particularly at a time when we are seeing overcrowding at our local women’s prison and will no doubt see more of it as a result of C-10.
Now, there are some caveats. As Wood tells us, “the court won’t take offenders charged with violent crimes. It also won’t accept drug dealers who traffic for profit, although it will consider those who traffic to support their personal habit.” Offenders in the program are regularly monitored and must agree to live within certain conditions set by the court. Not everyone succeeds though there appears to be consensus that rehabilitation is less expensive than punishment and has a better chance of reaching the offender.
Given all of this, can you see why I am confused? With all of the negative press (and it sure seems to outweigh the positive) around C-10, why would the government want to continue with mandatory minimum sentences and other troubling features of their legislation? Is it strictly to honour their promise of getting tough on crime with legislation within the first 100 days of their mandate? Do they really think this will work? From what I can see in the program described by Woods in her article, it appears the offenders appreciated the respect shown to them and the trust placed in them to make positive changes. What’s your experience been?
I’ve found there is much more incentive to take control of your life when people believe in your ability to do just that. Respect for the individual and his or her unique circumstance is the key. Several years ago I had the privilege to work with Fr. Mike Cundari when he was the principal of the former St. Jerome’s High School. His actions and words demonstrated respect for all. I marvelled at his ability to reach even the most difficult student. As I watched and learned I saw that respecting each person and ensuring their dignity remained intact in any disciplinary action was the key to his success. That and his enormous religious faith. But faith aside, his approach is reminiscent of that shown by those who initiated the drug treatment court. Hundreds, if not thousands of young men who attended this all-boys school in Kitchener will tell you this approach helped them be the best they could be. In the years to come, if the government doesn’t kill this innovative, smart on crime court, the same will no doubt be said of it.
Maybe it’s a good time to remember the words of Jack Layton:
Love is better than anger.
Hope is better than fear.
Optimism is better than despair.
So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we will change the world.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts and comments on this. Please add them below.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: April 29th, 2011 by Smart on Crime
Each month we focus on research, blogs and news from around the world addressing smart approaches to crime prevention. We’re always on the lookout for websites and resources to draw from. Since the Waterloo Region Integrated Drugs Strategy (WRIDS) Task Force is deep into the data collection phase of their project, it seems only fitting that we share some items related to substance use and addictions within communities.
The following programs and initiatives illustrate several Smart on Crime directions including Education and Learning, as they aim to educate clinicians and the public about diverse ways to deal with substance use.
- [Canada] The Calgary Drug Treatment Court (CDTC) started operations in May of 2007 having obtained funding through the City of Calgary. The program requires offenders to complete three stages: a mandatory residential treatment stage, a rehabilitation stage to help men and women re-enter the community as clean, sober, crime-free citizens, and a graduation and sentencing stage. Lasting an average of 18 months, offenders are required to appear weekly before a judge and participate in regular drug testing. A multi-disciplinary approach fosters success for participants by providing wrap-around services for those seeking help.
More information: The Canadian Association of Drug Treatment Courts
- [United States] The ‘warm line’ is a free, nationwide service launched recently on April 8, 2011 which offers peer-to-peer mentorship and resources for primary care physicians on incorporating screening and follow-up for substance-using patients into regular patient care. The ‘warm line’ service offers responses within 24 hours to physicians and other health care providers at no cost. Registration is required, and all physicians are provided with the contact information of a mentor who is a specialist in screening, brief intervention, treatment and referral for patients with substance use problems. Mentors can then be contacted, via phone or email, with specific questions about clinical situations involving alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. The initiative stresses the importance of the patient-doctor relationship in identifying unhealthy behaviors before they evolve into life threatening conditions.
Screening Tool Examples | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- [Kenya] Drug addiction? Try community therapy. The Therapeutic Community (TC) model has the ability to heal, restore and transform an addict. Research-based evidence by the International Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has documented the success of this model in treating individuals with drug problems stemming from social and psychological causes. Its success comes from peers helping peers and “community as method,” ensuring everyone in the community plays a role.
Locally, the Stonehenge Therapeutic Community in Guelph is an example of the initiative recommended for those communities dealing with addiction issues including Cost Province, Kenya.
Therapeutic Community | Stonehenge Therapuetic Community
Authored by: Tracie McGrath-Levis, BSW Practicum Student to WRCPC
What additional resources would you recommend related to women, violence and crime? Have your read anything thought provoking that you care to share? Post a comment to let us (and other readers) know about it!
Posted on: March 24th, 2011 by Smart on Crime
Just think about it… a research centre whose sole purpose is to think creatively about how the courts and justice system can better serve citizens. That’s what you’ll find in the U.S.-based Center for Court Innovation that grew out of one Manhattan community court experiment in 1993. In 18 years, the evidence for community courts has shown that engaging the community in the court system, where they live, and providing practical, proactive approaches to solving individual and community issues leads to longer and more lasting change.
The Center for Court Innovation maintains a practice of “innovation based on evidence”. And others within the U.S. justice system, at the very top levels, agree. Mary Lou Leary of the U.S. Department of Justice sees the effectiveness of community courts in 5 basic principles; they:
- reduce crime by addressing root causes
- streamline the justice system by providing access directly within the community
- change sentencing practices of the courts by providing the system with more options than just fines and punishment
- solve individual problems with unique solutions
- increase public trust in the justice system
Watch this 10 minute video which highlights examples from across the U.S. My favourite part is at minute 7:15 where the Dallas Police Chief, David Brown, states, “community court is not soft on crime. It’s being smartest on crime; there’s smart, smarter and smartest. The smartest law enforcement agencies attend to the social service needs of the people who live there”.
Justice, community and civic leaders involved in community courts seem to be driven by the passion for change for people and the creative solutions to help them get there. That seems smart on crime to me: evidence-based, collaborative, cooperative, flexible and responsive and with a social change orientation.
There are currently 37 community courts in the United States, one in Vancouver, British Columbia, one in Liverpool, England and one in Melbourne Australia.
Posted on: December 30th, 2010 by Smart on Crime
Here’s something we would say fits solidly in the ‘Smart on Crime” camp. Today, the Waterloo Region Record reports on the announcement of a drug treatment court for the Waterloo Region and area.
The justice systems (police, corrections, courts) have long identified drug and alcohol addiction, along with mental health issues, to be at the root of a high percentage of cases ending up in the criminal justice system. Most agree the justice system is not the best place, or most cost effective, to treat a drug or alcohol addition. In fact, most cycle through the revolving door as the root cause of the issue is never addressed.
Alternative approaches, such as drug treatment courts, are some success in getting to the roots of addition, criminal activity and incarceration for some individuals… and breaking the cycle of crime.
Some additional links:
Update: On Thursday February 17, The Current, a program on CBC radio, interviewed the Calgary Chief of Police, Rick Hanson, about his plans for developing more effective ways to deal with additions in the justice system. The interview is well worth a listen – great food for thought!
