Rehabilitation in Drug Court

Preston Burkhart 000386125

Professor Bruce Flowers

MW 8:00am - 8:50am

P a g e 1 | 11
 With prison and jail time being a contentious topic of criminal justice, many people

have begun to question if that method is a viable form of punishment or if it is a simply

“one size fts all” solution to criminal reform. Some would argue that yes, serving jail or

prison time is an acceptable form of punishment for most all criminal offenses and serves

as a good deterrent for would-be criminals. Many others argue that jails and prisons are an

expensive waste of money that diverts tax dollars away from more appealing options and

other necessary government spending. With the rise of the glorification of jail within circles

of would-be criminals, it has become a status symbol among some peer groups to be sent to

jail. Many impoverished people seek out jail time because they then are given food and

shelter in exchange for freedom. With jailtime becoming less effective, I am of the opinion

that anything that reduces costs while improving outcomes for criminals is something we

should incorporate into our criminal justice system. Obviously, there are times when a

prison sentence makes sense, but I also believe that the punishment must fit the crime to

present alternative types of reform to ensure the best outcomes for both the criminal and

society.

Accountability court programs are one such alterative to a prison sentence,

specifically those for drug abusers being admitted to drug court rehabilitation. My initial

thought when researching this topic was to the biggest drawback of a rehabilitation court:

it requires a voluntary commitment from criminals, who many not want to change their

habits. A convicted criminal must be committed to changing his or her life in order for this

P a g e 2 | 11
form of punishment to be effective. Another drawback is the time and resources it takes for

a criminal to be reassimilated into society. County and state courts have to use more time

and resources to constantly monitor and help these individuals. For court and case

workers, it can be much easier to sentence someone to jailtime rather than have weeks or

months set aside to help an induvial through the rehabilitation process. Although there are

some drawbacks, the benefits of such a program far outnumber the weaknesses.

One of the reasons I chose drug court rehabilitation as my topic is because of my

interest in biology and the physiology behind addiction. I have always had a desire to use

my skills to give back to society. This interest led me to pursue a career in nursing, where I

will be able to use my love for biology and the human body along with my specialized skills

to help those who need it most. Chronic drug abusers suffer from addiction. Addiction is

defined as a chronic, relapsing brain disease characterized by compulsive drug seeking and

use, despite harmful consequences. It is considered a brain disease because drugs change

the brain—they modify its structure and how it works. These brain changes can be long-

lasting and can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs. The biology

behind addiction starts with a very strong biochemical process that can require years of

rehabilitation to be completely free from its effects. Many people believe that drug abuse is

a victimless crime, but that is rarely the case. Primarily the abuser suffers from the relapse

that can cause unpredictable behaviors. This leads to remorse and moving away from the

drug again, causing another relapse with unpredictable effects. These cycles are positive

P a g e 3 | 11
feedback loops that can very quickly get out of control without external help. People who

associate with a drug abuser are often victims to their erratic behavior. Pregnant women

risk having babies with physical or mental deformities from drug abuse. Drug court

rehabilitation struck a chord with me because it combines the use of biological knowledge

from public health officials in conjunction with court professionals and the law to find the

best course of action for a drug criminal who wants to change his or her life. The drug

court’s goal is to help these people reach a point of self-sufficient rehabilitation as quickly

as possible.

Another reason I was drawn toward drug court rehabilitation is my religious

background. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we have a strict

health code called the Word of Wisdom. In this code we are prohibited from drinking

alcohol and partaking in recreational drugs. These codes are in place for two reasons. First,

they benefit our own health and safety. The second reason, which is more subtle, stems

from our belief in free will. We are counseled to avoid things that can cause addiction,

which includes the aforementioned drugs and alcohol but also extends to other areas of our

life. Free will, or the power to choose, is a gift from God, nearly as precious as life itself.

Often, however, agency is misunderstood. While we are free to choose, once we have made

those choices, we are tied to the consequences of those choices. We are free to take drugs

or not. But once we choose to use a habit-forming drug, we are bound to the consequences

of that choice. Addiction surrenders later freedom to choose. Through chemical means, one

P a g e 4 | 11
can literally become disconnected from his or her own will. My church has even gone so far

as to create a program to help people escape addiction, similar to the drug courts in place

today.

I decided to attend a drug court in Jackson County under the Piedmont Circuit

Specialty Courts. For this assignment, I attended three different sessions of drug court; one

was a planning session to discuss each participant, the next was a one-on-one meeting with

each current participant, and last was a graduation ceremony for those who completed the

program. The presiding official was Judge Currie Mingledorff. I contacted a secretary for

the court who then was able to get me in contact with Richard Bosten, who is the assistant

director of specialty courts. He provided me with a PDF document outlining some of the

benefits of accountability court programs. Some of the monetary savings that stood out to

me were $11.6 million saved in annual recidivism, $8.1 million saved in annual health care,

and $8.1 million saved in annual adjudication and incarceration. A total of $38.2 million is

saved in annual benefits from all persons who successfully graduated from those programs.

Each person who graduates from the rehabilitation program produces $22,129 in economic

benefits to the state. Beyond the economic impacts, the courts monitor graduates for years

after they leave. The program produces more long-term reformed criminals who go on to

live happy and productive lives than those who were released from jail or prison.

The day before my attendance, I wondered how many people would be in the

program. I wondered what these people would be like; would they be like meth addicts or

P a g e 5 | 11
would they be ordinary people who were trying to become better? I wondered what the

judge would be like—would I fear him? My thoughts then turned towards how many

people would be in attendance. I was advised that this would be a private meeting, but I

wondered if family members would attend. I was interested to learn the process of the

rehabilitation program.

The day arrived for the meeting. As I entered the court building, I saw the use of

Roman-style pillars at the front entrance. As I walked through the doors, I was greeted by

two officers who directed me through a metal detector to ensure I was not carrying any

weapons. I asked the officers for directions to the accountability court meeting. Apparently

they were expecting me, and they gave me directions to the courtroom. After proceeding up

the elevator, I made my way through the perimeter hallway to the courtroom, where the

council meeting was about to take place. I was asked by the door guard prior to entering

the room to sign a confidentiality form, because they discussed private health information

of the participants and to remain HIPAA compliant. This meeting was not open to the

public and only upon signing that confidentiality form could I attend. Once I signed it, the

officer showed me to the public seating area. I was immediately greeted by the judge, who

introduced me and told everyone why I was there.

The first meeting was a council meeting. The judge presided and made final

decisions for every participant in the program. The assistant district attorney, Paul

Trifiletti, was to look out for the state’s interests. The public defender, Kristen Waller, was

P a g e 6 | 11
there to ensure due process and be an advocate for every participant. The treatment

provider, Terri Weimorts, was a specialist who worked for Advantage Behavioral; she

provided specialized care and dispensed medications as necessary. Next to her was a lab

tech who performed and interpreted blood work from the participants. Also present was

the sheriff’s deputy, who does house check for the participants prior to acceptance into the

program. He also performs curfew checks while participants are in the program. There

were two probation officers, who aid the sheriff’s deputy in curfew checks and enforce the

judge’s rulings. Finally, there was the director of the courts and the assistant director. None

of the participants were present during this meeting. The judge’s desk placed him higher

than everyone else in the room to symbolize his authority and presiding power. During the

council meeting he did not have his robes on but wore a shirt and tie. Everyone else had on

similarly formal clothing. The desks in this meeting were arranged in a circular pattern so

the participants could counsel together. They began by bringing up the case from each

person, recounting their past actions, recent or notable actions or improvements, and how

well they were following the program. There were six individuals in this class of

participants. Focusing on one person at a time, the judge opened the floor to discussion.

There was one person who had fallen behind the curve and not followed the guidelines and

expectations set out for him. The public defender debated with the assistant district

attorney on how they would proceed with this individual. The public defendant advocated

for this participant and recommended that the reasons he gave for his performance be

P a g e 7 | 11
taken into consideration given his special circumstances. The assistant district attorney

outlined his setbacks and poor choices, recommending that punishment be dealt in

accordance with the pre-established rules of the court program. After several minutes of

deliberation, the judge concluded that a punishment must be dealt in accordance with their

rules. Each of the other participants was then brought up for discussion in similar fashion.

Deliberation proceeded between the public defender and assistant district attorney. Other

professionals gave their opinions and reports based on the last two weeks of results. They

discussed compliance, lab results, and active attendance in recovery sessions. After the

deliberation, the judge created a plan for each participant.

After each participant’s plan was finalized, a five-minute break was taken, and the

participants were escorted into the courtroom together by an officer. The judge then

individually called each person to the stand to talk with them about their previous two

weeks. He first commended them for their success over the past two weeks, allowing the

courtroom to applaud particularly notable achievements. He then brought up any failures

or shortcomings that had occurred in the previous timeframe. The judge gathered their

opinions and allowed them to advocate for their shortcomings. He then dealt punishment

as necessary to ensure future compliance, the most common of which was two to four days

of jail time and eight to twelve hours of extra program work. Weekend jail time was an

option—but at a cost of forty dollars per night, and they could choose that option only once.

These punishments were used to help keep people accountable and to prevent relapses.

P a g e 8 | 11
The judge then gave advice and counsel for future success. In my observation, it appeared

that the judge genuinely cared for each person but stayed within the laws and rules set for

the program. Something I noticed is that he always started with congratulating them on

their successes. He applauded them for overcoming challenges and meeting goals,

providing a positive reinforcement. Research has shown that positive reinforcement is the

strongest motivator for habit creation. I also realized that the judge dealt punishment even

if excuses were presented. I assume he did this to stay within the bounds set by the

program. This would show that any consequences for not following the rules would not be

overlooked by the court. The judge ended each conversation with some tips to bring about

future success and to help with compliance to the program. The judge proceeded in a

similar fashion for each participant. Two of the participants received certificates for

completing a major stage in the program. Upon reflection, I noticed that there were two

kinds of participants in the program: those who took their recovery seriously and those

who made excuses for every failure. Based upon my observations, it was this sentiment

alone that would be the telling factor for those who would graduate from the program and

those who would not.

The final meeting I observed was a graduation ceremony of a man from another

class. We proceeded downstairs to a small meeting hall where they had set up some metal

chairs for people to watch. This meeting was much more informal that the other two

meetings. With only fifteen people in attendance, most of whom were court workers, the

P a g e 9 | 11
judge stood to present the graduate with a certificate. The judge made a few remarks about

the power of the program. He spoke about reformation and hoped that the individual

would rejoin society as a productive member. He talked about how this moment would not

only affect the graduate but his children and friends as well. He gave some words of advice,

encouraging the man to remain free from drug use. He then allowed the graduate to speak.

The man expressed appreciation for the program and for the determination of the court

workers. I could see the respect that he had for the program and the difference it made in

his life. A few family members were present, and they showed heartfelt gratitude,

appreciation, and love for their reformed family member. While this was the shortest of the

meetings, it had the most impact on me. It proved to me that everyone is eligible for

positive change. It proved to me the validity of a state-sponsored drug recovery program. It

showed that with hard work, the right help, and determination, anyone can overcome their

addictions. After this meeting, the judge released everyone to go home.

Among the topics that were discussed in class, two stand out as being most relatable

to the drug court. The first is the law of due process, or treating each person equally under

the law. This was shown primarily during the council meeting when discussing the

participants’ weekly successes and failures. While the public defendant advocated for the

patient, the assistant district attorney argued in favor of keeping due process by abiding by

the predetermined rules of the program. Because of this, the judge ruled in favor of keeping

to the rules. This allowed for fair and equal treatment of all participants. While special

P a g e 10 | 11
circumstances were presented and well argued, these issues were usually not sufficient

enough to circumvent the program rules. These rules have well established boundaries,

and if the boundaries are broken then a punishment is dealt. It would be unfair to punish

one person but not another because of a “special circumstance.” The second topic that

stands out is called contempt of court. This was shown in the judge’s authority to enforce

his decision by way of his officers. Out of the six participants, he ruled that three were to

serve a few days in jail as punishment for not staying within the bounds of the program. In

order to enforce his decision, he had his officers immediately escort the person to jail. This

program enforces the idea that the government protects it citizens. Not only does this

program help protect people who may be affected by an individual’s drug abuse, it also

serves to protect the abuser by helping him or her to reform and recover. Some may argue

that interfering with one’s legal use of recreational drug would invade one’s zone of

privacy. But when that drug use becomes a legal issue, the zone of privacy law is no longer

valid.

P a g e 11 | 11