Drug Courts

May 19th, 2010 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

David Garrett blogs:

have just had the pleasure of listening to retired California Judge Peggy Hora speaking on Drug Courts in that state. These courts were introduced about 20 years ago, and seem to have been a resounding success on a number of fronts, particularly financial – for every dollar spent on Drug Courts, twelve dollars is saved on police and corrections budgets.

Rather than imposing prison sentences, Drug Courts suspend sentences pending the completion of drug treatment programmes that are tailored to each individual offender. If the offender successfully completes his or her programme, then the court imposes no further sentence. If they fail, they are sentenced as if the treatment programme had not been attempted. The offender does not suffer any additional penalty for attempting but failing to “get clean”.

In answer to a question from me, Judge Hora made it clear that treatment programmes in the community were not an option for violent offenders – regardless of their drug status. The Judge also observed that current thinking among addiction treatment specialists is that compulsory treatment within prisons can in fact be effective. Like most people, I had been of the view that compulsory treatment could not be effective. Her Honour noted that if compulsory treatments were to be effective, offenders had to “engage” with them – and apparently most do – and there has to be more intensive monitoring of those persons when they are back in the community.

Treatment rather than punishment sounds a worthwhile idea to me. A pity the Government ruled out any change to the drug laws.

Tags:

43 Responses to “Drug Courts”

  1. Nomestradamus (3,418 comments) says:

    A thread on drugs.

    Incoming comment from Phool… 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. LeftRightOut (622 comments) says:

    Legalising the less harmful drugs, such as marijuana, E, acid, speed, etc would save even more $ and police time.

    Yes, what a pity the Government ruled out any change to the drug laws, without even considering the report. Knee jerk politics at its best.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i can’t comment yet..i’m still in shock..

    pondering the possibility of agreeing with something farrar says..

    ’tis somewhat unsettling..

    i thought i’d wait for the usual-morons to babble their idiocies…

    ..and then just dismiss them in an omnibus-fashion…

    off ya go..!

    5-4-3-2-1–

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. edhunter (551 comments) says:

    Knee jerk politics at its best.
    What a load of bullshit, National were never going to change the drug laws, never even hinted at it in any of there pre-erection promises. Labour on the other hand hinted & teased us for 12 years with the promise of reforms etc & what did we get nadda zilch zero sweet fa

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. goonix (140 comments) says:

    Yeah how about legalising and taxing instead, that would save even more on police and corrections budgets, as well as generating revenue for education and other related initiatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Repton (769 comments) says:

    never even hinted at it in any of there pre-erection promises.

    The jokes just write themselves, really..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Jeff83 (745 comments) says:

    Agree with Goonix, LeftRightOut and Edhunters cynicism. I am all for legalising the less harmful drugs and allowing a state monopoly) (and taxing emm to cover any costs to health etc) and focusing police resources on those which cause more harm.

    In terms of any offending under the influence of any drug, which definitely includes alcohol, any sentence should see it as an aggravating rather than a mitigating influence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. edhunter (551 comments) says:

    pre-erection promises
    isn’t that all it ever amounts too, yeah baby I’ve got such a big cock, I’m a such great lover, the best you’ll ever have yeah baby… & when you finally buy the BS they’ve been feeding you, you wake up the next morning wanting to chew your own arm of & hopefully not have too bitter a taste in your mouth, with them promising it’ll better next time honest it will

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    They have drug courts in Australia too, and they work well.

    If phil thinks he’s about to succumb to the shock of agreeing with DPF, spare a thought for me, who it appears is in partial agreement with David Garrett.

    If Act had also insisted on this sort of early intervention to prevent reoffending, I could have supported a “3 strikes” law… because it would mean that only the most determined, deliberately violent offenders would be on their third strike.

    But where Garrett goes wrong, as usual, is in citing approvingly the fact that violent offenders are ineligible for Drug Court when some drugs are well known to cause otherwise docile people to become violent. Remove the drug, remove the violence, simple as that.

    Most such drugs aren’t illegal backstreet varieties, by the way. They are regularly prescribed by doctors who’ve no doubt just enjoyed a nice overseas “conference” paid for by the manufacturer.

    Some element of violence to an offence should not diaqualify an offender from Drug Court – it should be decided based on the individual’s history. I’ve seen first offenders, prescribed benzodiazepines, turned away from Drug Court because their offence was “violent” (usually only a threat of violence) and thus denied the help they need.

    Aside from that, it’s a brilliant scheme with proven positive results (including from forcible treatment, which I’ve been advocating for years). So why wasn’t it pushed by Act, along with 3 strikes? Not enough oportunity to pose with victims while looking tough?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    What make me laugh is that the worst drug is the legal one – alcohol. You go into any emergency room in any town in NZ on a friday or saturday night and see which drug is putting people in hospital – it ain’t pot, ecstacy or even the dreaded P.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mjwilknz (605 comments) says:

    Nice comment, Philu! These guys think they’ve got you sussed, eh? Boring buggers! :-)

    Is this an acceptable step towards decriminalisation of drugs? Be interesting to see if this is another area where Key might spend some of his political capital – assuming he still has some – if he wins a second term.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (14,116 comments) says:

    Right….lets tell our kids that you will not end up with a criminal conviction if you take drugs, I wonder what the result of that will be?

    Meanwhile, the tax payer is going to have to pay for the treatment of these mentally defective people.

    The only way I would ever support drug law reform would be if there was an immediate and total end to tax payer funded treatment centres.

    I am also surprised to see Rex back commenting on law and order again so quickly given his deathly silence over the murdered prison guard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    BB… I’ve been away from the net for a few days, working on a proposal by the local Chief Justice to basically abolish parole. Murdered prison guard? I’ll go have a look…

    There’s a vast difference between taking drugs (and primarily harming yourself) and selling drugs. I imagine we’d vie to outdo one another in thinking up harsh punishments for the scum that peddle poison. However in that description I include some GPs who prescribe people already addicted to one drug yet more drugs, with known negative side effects like benzodiazepines, in an attempt to “cure” them.

    With the exception of naltrexone (which governments refuse to fund) no prescription drug, on its own, will end addiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “…The only way I would ever support drug law reform would be if there was an immediate and total end to tax payer funded treatment centres…”

    so..fat sibling…you’d want to end any funding for alcoholism-treatment..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Pretty much what Rex said – I would hope that violent offenders are not defined too closely or barred from such programmes. Not that I am suggesting GBH should be given a get out of jail free card.

    I had a sentencing the other day. Easy as pie in many respects, in many respects a waste of the $330 flat fee (for two appearances) as the defendant had written her own sentence. I think she was 19. She was building towards a number of offences – none particularly serious. I think the worst was a common assault – not very nice but not crime of the century. She had a classic troubled childhood (beatings, parental abondonment for memory) and was addicted to drugs. In fact she was pleased to be in prison as it gave her a roof over her head and she was drug free.

    What was tragic was that there was no programme that she could be “sentenced” to. The waiting lists are too long and she would not attract a lengthy enough period of imprisonment to “qualify” for in house treatment. The Judge said if she could sentence her to a residential drug rehab right now she would – but none was available (and she wouldn’t qualify until after sentencing but she needed a CADS assessment in any event and CDHB won’t fund CADS assessments for remand prisoners).

    The Judge did her best – short term of imprisonment with leave to apply for Home D if a residential drug programme became available and directed a CADS assessment but I suspect that in a couple of months this person will be back on the streets prostituting herself for drugs and committing more petty offending – or dead from an overdose or bad punter.

    I am all for personality responsibility but that has to be tought (nutured) even. This person is nearly emotionless but has just enough realisation that drugs are not her future yet a lack of resources at this point (cliff side rescue?) means that people like this will remain a burden on the system for pretty much ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    and as for that ‘worst-drug’..alcohol…

    this is kinda interesting..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2010/the-little-pill-that-could-cure-alcoholism/

    “..t’s a dramatic but not unusual story.

    According to the World Health Organisation, approximately two million people around the world die from the effects of alcohol each year, more than from any single form of cancer.

    In the UK, government figures estimate that one in 13 people is dependent on alcohol.

    For all the efforts of doctors, therapists, social workers and support groups, only a fraction of those addicted to alcohol manage to stop drinking and remain abstinent for a significant period.

    It’s not extraordinary that, despite all his efforts and his obvious intelligence and commitment, Dr Ameisen failed to overcome his addiction.

    What is extraordinary is that he eventually discovered a drug he claims has cured him of alcoholism and that he claims can cure all addictions …

    … including cocaine, heroin, smoking, bulimia and anorexia, compulsive shopping and gambling.

    Because that is, according to all other schools of thought, simply impossible.

    The Ameisen sitting beside me in the bar of the Hotel Lutetia is as far from the popular conception of the alcoholic as it’s possible to get.

    Dressed in a dark blue suit and tie, tanned, relaxed and distinguished, he is very much the successful doctor …

    … rather than the ruined drunk who was in and out of rehabilitation units and even a psychiatric ward.

    As a recovering alcoholic myself, I no longer expect all addicts to be tramps …

    … but he is certainly a good advert for his method…”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (7,513 comments) says:

    While we are all being astounded at usual foes finding something to agree with in others’ comments, let me join in and acknowledge Mr Widerstrom’s (grudging) concession that I might have something valid to say.

    I will return the favour and acknowledge that he makes some good points. As I posted, I discussed the issue of drug treatment of violent offenders with Judge Hora. I was always of the view that compulsory drug treatment was unlikely to ever be effective, but apparently this is not so. Provided prisoners “engage” with the treatment programme – and apparently most do – compulsory treatment programmes in jail can be every bit as effective as voluntary ones. Or at least they have been in California.

    No-one would argue that our treatment facilities in jail – or rehabilitation programmes in general for that matter – are adequate. The NACT government is well aware of that, and is doubling the number of drug treatment beds in jails. That will almost certainly not be enough, and more resources will need to be put into them.

    Why start with three strikes? One has to start somewhere, and in our view a measure that is virtually guaranteed – if through incapacitation of violent offenders alone – to significantly reduce violent crime is a good place to begin to turn around the failed ideology and policies of the last forty years. Obviously, for any number of reasons, it is the right thing to then attempt to reduce the supply off offenders. That’s our next focus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Very quickly replying to BB (but please don’t let this turn into a threadjack, Garrett’s original point is too important).

    1. It’s a tragedy. It looks like it was assault which inadvertently resulted in death rather than murder. I imagine he’ll be charged with manslaughter and hopefully sentenced accordingly if found guilty. WA has a special “one punch law” that attempts to impose sentences somewhere between assault occasioning GBH and murder for people who get into a punch up outside a pub with no intent of killing the other person, but who do so when someone falls and hits their head on a hard surface, so this is by no means an unusual occurence.

    2. Judith Collins says it’s the only death on duty of a Corrections Officer, which is an excellent record and to some extent shows prisoners are not routinely violent towards guards.

    3. I support Corrections Officers having all the protective measures they need to do their job (which is at least as much as our police are given) but given that the inmate hadn’t attacked or even threatened violence towards guards I wonder if they’d have suited up in riot gear prior to doing a simple cell transfer?

    Other than that I’m not sure what you were looking for me to say?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    like a tipple..?..d’ya dave..?…(hic…!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    then of course there is this…

    “..The Act party’s “three strikes” component of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill –

    – mandatory imprisonment for life with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years for third-time serious violent or sexual offenders –

    – has passed its first reading.

    It is modelled on United States initiatives ..

    ..that have helped to give that country its remarkable imprisonment rate of 753 per 100,000 of population.

    The bill’s supporters argue that it will reduce crime, its costs have been exaggerated ..

    .. and there is community support for it.

    I don’t believe it will, for the following reasons..”

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/10-good-reasons-to-ditch-three-strikes/

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Mr Elbow (30 comments) says:

    There are three certainties in life: death, taxes, and Rex Widerstrom attacking Garrett any chance he gets. The rest of your comment was worth a read – so please don’t ruin it with silly personal attacks.

    I would be very uneasy with the thought of violent offenders going through Drug Court and then facing no further punishment. The balance between rehab and punishment is a fine one, and treatment for violent offenders is a very good idea, but when someone is hurt – or worse – then there needs to be a sentence over and above attending a drug treatment programme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    can’t do anything about ‘your’ drug….eh dave…?

    ..just other-peoples’ drugs…eh..?

    how do you spell hypocrisy..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Look I have no problem with legalising marijuana, but there must be a warning to all users that they will not be entitled to any compensation for any future ill-effects. I can just envisage future drug users making claims against the government when people like phil are addicted to the drug and blame the government for legalising it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    The Swedish also use a similar model loosely called ‘coercive care’. When 1st offenders and youth offenders are caught using drugs they are offered a drug treatment diversion often by the police so that it never gets to the level of court. Youth agencies all co-operate: youth police, school liaison people, social workers and their equivalent of CYFS all these and other stakeholders from relevant agencies all meet once or twice a week on specific case files and brainstorm and then wrap service options around the at-risk young person. When it comes to drugs – the combination of carefully targetted, properly funded and effective education, adequately funded adolescent specific treatment options and the police standing over with a stick threatening prosecution should the individual not co-operate or relapse combine to produce by far the lowest rate of drug use in the western world. The UN World Drug Report reports lifetime use of cannabis by 16 – 25 year olds in NZ at over 50% – in Sweden it is a paltry 9%. Use of cannabis in the last year – NZ 34% Sweden 2% for the same age cohort.

    Some US Youth Drug Courts report an 80% success rate – 80% of kids drug free 1 year after an appearance!

    I’ve always advocated that NZ pass a suite of reforms to the drug laws that draw on these highly successful models adapted to NZ conditions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Mr Elbow:

    As long as David Garrett continues to espouse views such as that prison rape is just a part of the “dog eat dog” culture for which offenders somehow volunteer when they commit an offence, then I will continue to make my attacks personal. I rarely find anyone’s point of view personally so offensive as to require calling their morality into doubt (as anyone who regularly reads my comments will attest). But I find dehumanising any group of people, even if they’re offenders, abhorrent. Subject to the need to punish them, prisoners have the same rights as anyone, and that includes freedom from fear, rape and torture – especially bearing in mind that our prisons are unnecessarily full of people who’ve committed non-violent offences.

    But on to your substantive point. Drug offenders who’ve committed crimes which victimise people other than themselves needn’t entirely escape punishment by going through Drug Court. It can simply be a lesser punishment, or a different punishment, offered as an incentive if they successfully complete their drug program. The Drug Court usually suspends sentencing till the offender has had time to complete the program… it can then impose a sentence up to and including the maximum.

    I agree that someone who’s committed a violent crime should’t get away scot free simply because they kick their habit. But considering that becoming drug-free usually means also becoming crime free, there’s a huge positive outcome for society (as well as the individual offender) if we can incentivise them to do so on their first or second serious contact with the justice system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Those interested in the effectiveness of Drug Courts may want to have a look at the WA Attorney General’s Department’s review published in 2006 (pdf file).

    The statistic most people here would be concerned with, I imagine, was recidivism (and thus danger to the community).

    Over a two year follow-up period, the percentage of offenders dealt with in different ways who did not reoffend were:

    Prison: 29%
    Community-based sentences: 36%
    Drug Court programs: 47%

    Clearly prisons are the least effective way of reducing reoffending, so I really wonder why so many people here suggest more, and longer, terms as the answer and claim that it’s about community safety. It is, purely and simply, about revenge. That’s fine, if that’s what you want our justice system to be about… just don’t cloak it behind supposed concern for victims. If you want to reduce the number of victims, keep people out of jail and force them to deal with their problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mjwilknz (605 comments) says:

    @Rex, reoffending over 2 years, huh? How do we know that doesn’t show that throwing crims in jail makes them less likely to get caught after they come out becomes they become better criminals while they’re inside!?! :-)

    Furthermore, what offence do recidivists get in trouble for the second time around? Surely getting caught again for a drug offence isn’t as worrying as getting caught for violent crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Steve (4,580 comments) says:

    A thread on drugs.

    Incoming comment from Phool… 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…

    Sure enough away he goes. Good you know your Kiwiblog name Phool
    “i can’t comment yet..i’m still in shock..” Well your shock is coming soon Phool. Won’t be long now. Paula is gonna slap you in the head with a big fat Angus Fillet Steak.
    Oh, I did 10 hours work today, the tax on that goes to you maggot

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bruceh (102 comments) says:

    I think Rex is reactionary rather than rational in his personal attacks on David Garrett. Still, he is obviously mentally healthy and professionally resourceful enough to cure himself of such an emotional addiction if he gives himself sufficient incentive :-)

    It is one thing to passionately disagree with Garrett over a point or a comment, it is another to generalize this into the allergic reactions we all have to endure.

    The concessions the parties have made to each other on this thread are an obvious opportunity to build rapport, if they wish to. In fact I wouldn’t mind betting that David is truly all ears to the hands-on experience and resources Rex can offer to the drugs court debate.

    Genuine problem solving solutions are pretty hard to get on the agenda of this play safe government and Garrett has proved he is a reforming force to be reckoned with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh look..!..there’s steve..!

    (yawn..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    mjwilknz:

    How do we know that doesn’t show that throwing crims in jail makes them less likely to get caught after they come out becomes they become better criminals while they’re inside!?!

    I grant you that that could also be correct. But then it also counts as a negative outcome :-P

    Furthermore, what offence do recidivists get in trouble for the second time around? Surely getting caught again for a drug offence isn’t as worrying as getting caught for violent crime.

    Worrying to society or to the criminal? Rarely does someone get a second chance to go through Drug Court, so a second drug offence is more serious, in terms of consequences, for the offender.

    If you mean for society, does this answer your question?:

    Overall, the statistics showed all major offence groups declined from pre-offending levels, especially in the Community and Drug Court cohorts. Property offences (especially theft related) declined substantially as did drug related offences in the Community and Drug Court cohorts. By contrast, post-release prisoners were more likely to return to court for some offence categories – especially in relation to drugs and assaults.

    (From the outcomes analysis linked to above).

    And for those wondering about cost savings (another benefit highlighted in Garrett’s original post):

    …Drug Court “saved” straight correctional costs of on average $67,345 per Drug Court client ($7,310 for community corrections and $93,075 for prisons).

    That’s almost $100,000 back in the tax pool for health, education, housing or even tax cuts for every prisoner we keep out of jail and instead force to confront their drug use and offending. All with lower recidivism (specially in relation to violent offences).

    I’m still awaiting a coherent argument from the “hang ‘em all” brigade as to why this isn’t a good idea…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    bruceh suggests:

    I wouldn’t mind betting that David is truly all ears to the hands-on experience and resources Rex can offer to the drugs court debate.

    I’m happy to try to advise Mr Garrett on any aspect of police, corrections or justice policy based on some 20 years of personal involvement and experience.

    However that pales into relative insignificance beside that of Kim Workman, who isn’t some daffy bleeding heart but someone who has both practical and academic experience in the field.

    And I haven’t noticed a lot of respect emanating from Mr Garrett and his SST buddies in that direction, have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. bruceh (102 comments) says:

    Actually Rex yes I have. I’ve heard David Garrett twice publicly agree with Kim Workman’s work and values in the areas of rehab, prevention and wholistic care. The disagreement was only over the approach to sentencing of repeat violent offenders. End of Story

    Protecting the innocent public and dealing with the range of contributing causes at the personal and family/ community level level are not mutually exclusive notions, they go together very well

    ACT’s DNA adds to this at the systemic level with its approach to government social and economic policy settings in the areas of tax reform, welfare, health, ACC, education and economic growth.

    I also know something of David Garrett’s personal work with court clients he has represented. Being tough, honest and direct is nothing to do with being uncaring and insensitive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    With apologies to Ali G.

    “This class A drug classification, does this guarantee the quality of the trip?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    Of course this approach assumes that there is something inherantly wrong with recreational drug use (as opposed to abuse), in comparison to say, getting absolutely plastered on booze..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ed Snack (1,924 comments) says:

    Rex, those WA stats you quote are utterly worthless, on their own. Can we say “confounding factors” ? I would be very surprised indeed if the profiles of the people sentenced in the different ways were sufficiently similar to permit a cross comparison of that nature.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. CJD (333 comments) says:

    All the Red rhetoric on drugs-amazing! Cigarettes are BAD, they cause cancer, then people get sick, they clog up the health system and use funds that could otherwise be utilised effectively to keep deserving waistrels on the dole!

    However…dope good, organic, etc. Wake up-dope is just as laden with carcinogens, is likely to cause more road carnage, will be difficult to detect in workers operating heavy equipment, so when they get flattened they cost even more money to fix, keeping even more bludgers out of their God/gaia/river spirit/tree spirit-given right to be supported by people that actually work for a living. And not to mention the schizophrenia and psychoses caused/exacerbated by this and other drugs…

    Nope! Drugs good/cigarettes bad, because we all know tobacco is pushed by big business and big business bad!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Ed Snack:

    Then I can only suggest that you actually read the report, which attempts to address those sorts of differentials, rather than expect me to reproduce te entire thing here. The researchers in the Department of the Attorney General aren’t so stupid as to produce a report which takes no account of such factors, though naturally they admit that there are a raft of variables across that (and indeed any) sample group.

    But even if we allow for a statistically significant skew of, say, five percent on each figure, keeping people out of jail still offers society a far better chance of avoiding being offended against. I (and the authors of any number of studies on schemes such as Drug Court) can offer reasons why, starting with not putting relatively minor offenders in a pressure cooker crime university with dangerous, more experienced criminals.

    As I said above, I’d like to hear the argument from people such as yourself as to why you support prison for anyone but those who’ve committed actual violence against others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    MikeE:

    I agree. Seeing people charged for possession of a small amount of cannabis clogging up Drug Court makes me want to put something in the politicians’ water. Drugs, perhaps. But that doesn’t negate the usefulness of Drug Court where drug use (or abuse) has led to some other offending, and where eliminating the addiction would remove the incentive to commit crime.

    bruceh:

    Really? So Workman and Garrett are in agreement on issues such as double bunking (and the increased risk of rape as a result), and Garrett’s other statements on crime and punishment, just not on 3 strikes?

    And even if we confine our examination to Garrett’s statements on “3 strikes” we find this:

    One can only wonder at the motives driving both officials and lobbyists such as Re-Thinking Crime & Punishment’s Mr Kim Workman

    What’s that mean, exactly? That Workman wants more people beaten and raped? Or perhaps, taking into account this, earlier in the same statement:

    It seems that those in New Zealand making alarming predictions are not at all interested in the clear evidence readily available of how ‘Three Strikes’ will actually work. All they are interested in is scaring the National Party into not supporting the policy – whatever the truth maybe.

    he just means Workman is telling deliberate lies? Not a lot of respect there, which is why I demonstrate little in return.

    There are people here on Kiwiblog with whom I disagree on these issues regularly. To the best of my knowledge none have implied I’m some sort of enabler of rapists nor that I’m making shit up, though we do debate the validity of the conclusions reached based on that data, as Ed Snack and I are doing here at present.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. CJD (333 comments) says:

    What is it that you don’t get about Three Strikes??? Not that complex, bad bad (wo)man does one bad thing and gets a slap…thick enough to have another go and gets another slap and is cretinous to do it again, get the full penalty. Inspired!

    It is not the State’s responsibility to correct recalcitrant cims-it is the State’s responsibility to protect innocent citizens from rabid dogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    CJD, it’s been explained time and time again, here and elsewhere, most eloquently by Graeme Edgeler. Google it. I’m not going to waste my time typing an expansive answer to someone who’s closed their mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. penllynboy (8 comments) says:

    The first dedicated drink and drug Courts for adults will be starting next year in Auckland and Waitakere District Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. penllynboy (8 comments) says:

    Drug Courts http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=108792989161096

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote