Problem-solving courts, or more accurately, specialized
dockets, are established to deal with problems that may
benefit from focused and sustained attention. They
usually include a treatment component in an effort to
reduce recidivism, which in turn reduces the number of
future arrests, prosecutions, and court cases.
Specialized drug courts appeared in the late 1980s in
response to the dramatic increase in drug offenses.
Some drug courts, often referred to as “drug
treatment courts,” emphasize treatment to reduce
recidivism. Essential elements of drug courts include
(1) immediate intervention, (2) nonadversarial
adjudication, (3) hands-on judicial involvement, (4)
treatment programs with clear rules and structured
goals, and (5) a team approach that brings together the
judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, treatment provider,
and correctional staff.
Although there are variations, drug treatment
courts usually include judicial supervision of
community-based treatment, timely referral to treatment,
regular status hearings to monitor treatment progress,
mandatory and periodic drug testing, and a system of
graduated sanctions and rewards.
The success of drug courts has
sparked interest in other types of problem-solving
courts, including community courts, domestic violence
courts, and mental health courts.
Top
The high incidence of crimes
committed while under the influence of alcohol,
including driving while impaired, has prompted several
jurisdictions to develop sobriety or driving while
impaired (DWI) courts,
most based on the drug court model. Threats of
punishment alone are not likely to change the behavior
of individuals, and the philosophy of DWI courts is to
treat the problem as well as punish the offender. DWI courts were established to protect public safety and to
reduce recidivism by attacking the root cause of
impaired driving—alcohol and substance abuse. The
mission of sobriety and DWI courts is "to make
offenders accountable for their actions, bringing about
a behavioral change that ends recidivism, stops the
abuse of alcohol, and protects the public; to treat the
victims of DWI offenders in a fair and just way; and to
educate the public as to the benefits of sobriety and
DWI Courts for the communities they serve."
At a national conference of Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
Dr. Jeffrey Runge announced that one of the three
impaired driving priorities for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was DWI
adjudication and supervision.
Part of this priority is to establish DWI courts,
expand drug courts, or apply the drug court model to DWI
cases.
Specialized DWI courts, which are
in effect specialized dockets in most states, are
reputed to be better equipped to handle DWI cases,
permitting swifter resolutions, reducing backlog, and
improving outcomes.
Judges also believe that the use of DWI courts
should be expanded, allowing experienced judges to use
treatment resources and to sentence, sanction, or reward
offenders with greater consistency.
Common characteristics of
sobriety and DWI courts include intense alcohol
addiction treatment and heavy court supervision, with
jail sentences as a last resort. Compliance with
treatment and other court-mandated requirements is
verified by frequent alcohol and drug testing, close
community supervision, and interaction with the judge in
non-adversarial
court review hearings.
Top
The
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
provided a list of 68 DWI “courts,” which are
essentially specialized dockets.
All of these courts were contacted in early 2004
and asked to provide information about the year they
were established, the types of cases they heard, the
volume of cases heard, and recidivism rates.
Five of the courts were specialized courts but
not DWI courts, leaving a total of 63 DWI courts.
Most of the DWI courts appear to
have been developed from drug courts, but there are
exceptions. Seven
of the 63 DWI courts reported being established as
separate courts. More
than a third of adult drug courts in the United States
are in California, New York, Missouri, and Florida.
Half of the family drug courts are in the large
states of California, New York, and Florida, and a third
of the juvenile drug courts are found in these three
states plus Ohio. A
third of the DWI courts, however, are in Michigan (10),
Idaho (6), and Indiana (6), so although DWI courts were
created from drug courts, the states with the largest
number of drug courts do not have the most DWI courts.
DWI courts are also not more prevalent in states
that have an unusually high number of alcohol-related
fatalities.
All
of the courts were established rather recently (after
1994), except for the Los Angeles Superior Court DUI
Program and the Hancock County, Indiana, DWI Court, both
established in 1971. Forty of the 63 were established in
2000 or later.
Most
DWI courts (53 of 63) do not accept violent offenders
into the program. A much smaller number (14) do not
accept juvenile offenders or sex offenders (8) into
their programs. Caseloads
are, and perhaps need to be, small.
The vast majority of DWI courts (45 of the 63)
handle fewer than 100 cases per year.
Top
Although the multiple-DWI offender
shares some characteristics with the typical drug
offender (for example, they each share substance abuse
problems that require treatment and a strong support
system to succeed), they also have differences. DWI offenders tend to be male, employed, and slightly older
than drug offenders and are more often able to draw on
emotional resources, including family, that are helpful
to recovery.
A careful evaluation of the effectiveness of DWI
courts, both those using the drug court model and those
created separately, is needed.
Unlike drug offenses, DWI offenses
are not perceived as "victimless"
crimes because public safety is more of an issue, and
community impact must be kept in mind when designing a
DWI court system. Monitoring DWI offenders is more
difficult than monitoring drug court participants
because alcohol goes through the body quickly and is
harder to detect than drugs. Alcohol is also legal and
easier to obtain than drugs.
Top
Issues still under discussion
include the role of the judge, resources needed to
support a DWI court, and ways to measure the
effectiveness of DWI courts.
Despite the use of problem-solving
courts in many arenas, the concern persists that judges
are more involved with defendants, so it is more
difficult for them to remain impartial. Judges need to
praise and sanction defendants but must avoid getting so
involved personally that their impartiality is at risk.
Could this monitoring task be outsourced to treatment
agencies that report violations to the court?
Sanctions may appear to be coercive because
judges may have to tell a defendant where to live or
where to work. Judges may set such guidelines to some
extent, but this role goes beyond the traditional
judicial function. Likewise, sanctions that require
defendants to use prescription drugs, such as Naltrexone
and Antabuse, or require invasive treatments, like
acupuncture, may be perceived as coercive and beyond the
scope of judicial authority.
On the cost side, an integrated
information system is required to track individuals
through case-processing stages and to determine whether
they have met the various screening, treatment, and
other requirements imposed by the court.
Top
Would nonspecialized courts perform
as well if given the same resources and access to
treatment as specialized DWI courts? Critics may argue
that specialized DWI courts are indeed more successful
than other courts because they have so many more
resources, which they require if they are to have
frequent review hearings, frequent testing for alcohol
use, and progress reports from probation officers and
addiction counselors. To determine the appropriate
workload levels for specialized DWI courts, as well as
for other courts having jurisdiction over DWI cases,
workload assessments are necessary.
An impartial evaluation of special
DWI courts is needed to determine just how effective
they are in reducing recidivism over time. Reported
recidivism rates from the DWI courts that tracked them
were impressive. How do those rates compare with
recidivism rates in nonspecialized courts?
More generally, is the relationship between
specialized DWI courts and other courts related to an
outside factor, such as speed of processing, so that
recidivism is related to processing speed in general
rather than to a specialized court?
What decrease in recidivism would be necessary to
justify the additional resources needed by a specialized
DWI docket?
DWI courts use some criteria
to screen offenders eligible for drug court. Do
screening criteria affect the success rates of DWI
courts? Should
they be limited to misdemeanors? Nonviolent offenders?
(This debate is parallel to the debate over a strategy
to reduce alcohol/drug-related crashes.
Is it better to focus on the relatively small
proportion of the driving population responsible for a
large percentage of alcohol/drug-related crashes, i.e.,
the hard-core offenders, or on the much larger number of
moderate drinking drivers whose very numbers contribute
significantly to the problem, although their individual
risk of crashes is relatively low?) The assessment of
all convicted DWI offenders for alcohol problems is an
expensive proposition. Does the reduction in recidivism
make it a worthwhile investment?
Top
|
