New Jersey Supreme Court Opens Up Drug Court to more New Jerseyans

"It is inconceivable that the Legislature granted a trial court power to impose a probationary sentence, but not the power to attach the one condition necessary to address the offender's desperate needs — a drug-rehabilitation program." - Justice Albin-

The New Jersey Supreme Court on September 19, 2007 said judges can allow criminals to enter "drug courts," which combine punishment and rehabilitation for non-violent drug offenders, even if they have more than one previous conviction for non-violent offenses.

An earlier appeals court ruling had limited participation in the drug courts to those who were eligible for "special probation," a type of sentence available only to drug or alcohol-dependent suspects with no more than one prior conviction.

In a unanimous decision by the Court Justice Albin writing for the court said: "Drug Courts have achieved notable success," He reasoned that when a drug addict is likely to receive a probationary sentence, "it is preferable that defendant be monitored within a specialized court with personnel who have the particularized skills and training to maximize the prospect of the offender's rehabilitation."

The court case was sparked when Warren County Superior Court Judge John Pursel last year allowed Jason G. Meyer, a 25-year-old county resident, to enter the drug court program after he pleaded guilty to distribution of imitation illegal drugs, shoplifting, and resisting arrest in 2006 .

The Warren County Prosecutor's Office maintained he did not qualify for "special probation," because of four prior convictions for third-degree offenses including car theft and receiving stolen property.

Yesterday's ruling said the appeals court was wrong to so strictly limit entry into drug court. "It is inconceivable that the Legislature granted a trial court power to impose a probationary sentence, but not the power to attach the one condition necessary to address the offender's desperate needs -- a drug rehabilitation program," Albin wrote.

This only makes sense for those who are dragged down by addiction. Placing people in jail because of an addiction is draconian. Though, these courts are not perfect and can sometimes work against a defendant into serving more time, treating rather than incarcerating makes good policy sense.

In an editorial on September 25th, the Newark Star Ledger praised the decision. They said in the eleven years since the drug court inception in New Jersey it has proven to be an arousing success. For example, it costs the state $34,218 a year to house an in mate in a state prison. If the same person is sentenced to take part in rehabilitative services of drug court, including the more expensive six-month residential drug treatment, the cost is $17,266. That figure is cut in half if the person gets outpatient drug treatment.

What I find the most remarkable is 93 percent of those who go through drug court leave with a job. The Editorial goes on: And recidivism rates are significantly lower for drug court graduates than other drug offenders. Three years after completing the rehabilitation programs required in drug courts only 14 percent of offenders commit new crimes. Only 7 percent end up back in prison. For those who aren't sent to drug court, the rates tops 50 percent. Actually, the rate in New Jersey is over 60 percent according to the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice.

Maybe it is time New Jersey looked into therapeutic interventions for more than just drug offenders and drug addicts. The evidence speaks for itself and if we can surround those in drug courts with these types of services, then why not do it for more serving time in New Jersey jails. After all some 97% of New Jersey prisoners will go home to their communities; would it not make policy sense they go home with a job, a place to live and a way to take care of themselves?