Drug Court Observations

Once again I have found that first impressions, skepticism without first-hand knowledge, and value judgments are not always reliable indicators of reality. My skepticism involved the assignment of observing Drug Court at the Blount County Justice Center, not for one session but two. I had only a passing knowledge of this new endeavor by state and local governments throughout the United States of America. My first impression was that it wouldn’t last, and if it did, it probably wouldn’t work. I wondered to myself about what Drug Court did and how could it help. Besides, I had the narrow mind-set that read “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” After completing the assigned observations and engaging in class discussions about Drug Court, the actuality of this program has afforded me a new perspective on my first impressions and thoughts.

My first day of observations was October 2, 2000. As I entered the building I observed a group of young adults ranging in age from about 19 to 30 years. They were primarily male with only one female present in this group. They were talking in a familiar manner among themselves. As I opened the door I thought to myself that they must be the clients. Later in the morning this turned out to be the case. I don’t remember any kind of value judgment on my part, but my surmising was based rather on the camaraderie they seemed to share.

My second day of observations was on October 10, 2000. Many of the clients that were present on October 2 were also present at this session of court. Most of their attire was casual to the grunge look. Only two women appeared in business attire.

One person in particular comes to mind. He was a male about 25 years of age who appeared to be making progress but was involved in an abusive relationship in which he was the batterer. He had a negative drug screen. He was working on re-doing Step 2 and told the judge he had not done Step 4. The judge firmly, but kindly told him it was necessary to his recovery that he leave the relationship with his girlfriend. On my second day of observations this same man was present. He had just been released from jail. It was not evident whether this was from a positive drug screen or another matter. The judge once again in the same manner “urged” this man to move to a halfway house.

Males appeared to outnumber females in the Drug Court program. There is no way to know why this is so without more information and statistics. Another client that comes to mind is a woman of about 35 years of age. She was very frightened and in a state of panic as she appeared before the judge. She was present on both days I observed. The first day (October 2) she was shaky in appearance and her voice was low in volume and quavering. She was in business attire. The judge was gentle with her but this seemed to do nothing to allay her fears. The second day I was in court she was there again. Judge Thomas warned her that the drug screens had not been readable and that she must change this. From what I could grasp there was some weakness in her specimens that prevented an accurate reading. If this didn’t change with the next screen they would consider it a positive and she would spend 24 hours in jail. These statements brought the woman to the brink of tears and I expected at any moment that she would do so.

These vignettes illustrate the many problems that the clients seemed to encounter as they attempt to get their lives back on track and avoid spending time serving a jail sentence. Problems ranged from things as elementary as proper diet to obtaining housing. A particular problem that on the surface doesn’t appear to be one is family support and participation in treatment and recovery. Some of the family situations were not supportive and in fact appeared from the conversations to be detrimental to the addict. Other issues for clients were honesty with employers, healthy lifestyle, hospitalization, and working the steps as set out by the Alcoholics Anonymous fellowship and treatment personnel. One young man was told to enter Cornerstone, which is a residential treatment center, due to his repeated positive drug screens. Stopping the usage of drugs is evidently of foremost importance to the clients.

The professionals were easily recognized because they sat in the jury box or at the attorney’s tables. They seemed to consist of counselors from various treatment centers, lawyers, and the like. This team meets with the judge before court begins and apprises Judge Thomas of each client’s past week(s) of progress. Professionals were dressed in business attire that ranged from formal to business casual.

The atmosphere in Drug Court was quite different from other court settings I have attended. Drug Court involves a direct dialogue with the judge and is less formal in the general proceedings. One client felt comfortable in raising their hand after they had left the dais. The judge recognized her and answered her question even though someone else had approached the bench. Overall there appeared to be an atmosphere of firmness, caring and support. Although not overt it was obvious that though the procedure was more relaxed it was still a court of law that required (without demanding) proper deportment. One note as to the seating arrangement that was present both times I was in court. Hypothesizing who was client, professional or observer, on the face of it, was simple. Upon entering the courtroom; facing the judge, the clients were seated on the left, observers and non-clients on the right, and professionals in the front of the courtroom to the right of the judge’s bench. My point in this observation is that in another courtroom this would not be so obvious with the exception of the professionals.

In conclusion it is abundantly clear to me that my first impressions and thoughts about Drug Court were far from the reality of this program. While the Blount County Drug Court is still in its infancy the difference it makes is crystal clear to me both on a personal and observational level. Common sense should dictate the inception of much greater numbers of these programs. A person who has resorted to non-violent crime to support their drug habit is at a critical stage of their addiction. We as a society will be much safer if these non-violent offenders are offered this kind of choice. Incarceration is not the answer. The next step in lawlessness could be, and many times is, a violent criminal act. Relapse is part of addiction as evidenced by the clients I observed who had to go directly from court to jail. This could, to an uniformed observer, be perceived as a failure. In this author’s opinion that is not the case. All of the process of recovery is an opportunity to learn another way to live drug free. That cannot and will not be learned inside the penal system. Participants in the Drug Court program are given the choice to live without chemical dependency.

Oct. 14, 2000