DRUG CONTROL AND THE COURTS is an examination of drug courts, but not drug courts as the term is normally
understood, that is, criminal courts that deal only with drug-related cases. Inciardi, McBride and Rivers use the term "drug courts"
to refer to courts that take an active role in overseeing and supervising individuals in the treatment process. These individuals,
often first offense, nonviolent offenders, are given the option of standing trial or being diverted into a drug treatment program that
is overseen by a judge. In a sense the judge becomes the offender's case worker, a combination parole officer, counselor, and
judge. The authors conclude (p. 88) "Drug courts--as a means of organizing, 'recruiting,' and improving retention and outcomes in
their associated rehabilitation programs--hold great promise."
Despite this optimism and the summary of a drug court evaluation from Miami, little data are presented to indicate that drug courts
are effective. The authors are well schooled in the program evaluation literature and provide a list of 16 indicators of whether or
not drug court programs actually work. As a hypothetical design for program evaluation, their outline is without flaw. In practice,
however, few of these sixteen indicators are measured. What the reader wants to know is this: Do participants in these programs
have more or less success in staying off drugs than individuals who do not participate? The best indicator for the Miami program
(but surprisingly absent for the other programs discussed) is the rearrest rate. Within one year 20% of the participants were
rearrested for a drug offense and 32% for any felony offense; the comparison figures for individuals not in this program were 23%
and 33%. The differences are not statistically significant. At the same time the Miami program was criticized by local media for
having "failed to keep track of program participants, for not keeping accurate records," and for quickly moving offenders back onto
the streets. In short, a program of questionable success and hardly one that should be held out as a model for other jurisdictions to
use.
Despite the failure of the authors' main thesis, there are some strong points that make the book worth reading. The authors argue
that at the present time, and historically, there are two types of drug users. One is a casual user who might commit crimes to
support a drug habit, but generally is nonviolent and not a major contributor to crime. The other has a long criminal record and an
addictive drug habit. In the later case the criminal behavior normally precedes drug use, but they eventually become so entwined
that determining causality is not possible. This insight, corroborated from historical sources and current studies, could well be used
to determine which individuals might benefit from treatment (and drug courts). This conclusion, however, is left implied rather than
taken as the explicit motivation for the book.
The authors, trained as sociologists, do an excellent job of setting drug control and drug treatment in its historical and social
context. The role of the courts in the early establishment of punitive approaches is well documented. What is missing is the current
role of the courts in drug control policy that is not treatment oriented. Just as courts played a role in the early rejection of the
medical model (i. e., treatment) of drug abuse in favor of the criminal model (i.e., punishment), courts have been willing
participants in the same process in recent years. While this is not the book the authors intended to write, it is a book that would be
a major contribution to understanding current drug control policy and the role that courts play in it.
The authors make a persuasive argument that the hardcore user has a history of frequent arrests. This makes the court system the
ideal choke point to apply coercion to force individuals into treatment (a full discussion of the legal issues involved in such coercion
is presented). Yet at the same time the authors fail to grapple with the actual operation of such programs, which often cannot or
will not take the hard core multi-drug user. In regard to such programs in the 1970s (p. 42), "The concept of a first offender/heroin
user turned out to be an oxymoron: There was simply no such thing." In a similar vein the authors do not tell the reader how one
persuades judges ("the last stronghold of feudalism in the United States" p. 59) to give up their judicial role to become a social
worker.
DRUG CONTROL AND THE COURTS is a relatively short book, only 90 pages of text, that is clearly written. It would be
useful as a supplement in a criminal justice class to raise questions about alternatives to incarceration and to probe issues of
program evaluation. It could also be used as a supplement in judicial process classes to illustrate how different roles for judges
could be created. For the more advanced student, an excellent bibliography provides the starting point for a fuller assessment of
the role that courts have played in drug treatment policy.
