Jeff Tauber – Page 2 – Reentry Court Solutions

LAW AND MORALITY IN DRUG COURTS

January 17, 2016September 30, 2015 by Jeff Tauber

September 30,2015

I concur strongly with the recently passed New York State legislation finding Drug Court Judges unqualified to make certain treatment decisions. In my 2001 monograph, “Rational Drug Policy Reform: A Resorce Guide”, I spoke of the Drug court and the Drug Court Judge’s role “to motivate the drug abuser to comply with treatment requirements”, and concluded ” drug courts recognize that drug abuse is not primarily a criminal justice problem, but that the courts are a necessary component of its solution”.

“In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case, Robinson v. California laid the groundwork for the drug court model. In Robinson, Justice Stewart speaking for the majority held that:

“It is unlikely that any State at this moment in history would attempt to make it a criminal offense for a person to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease. A State might determine that the general health and welfare require that the victims of these and other human afflictions be dealt with by compulsory treatment, involving quarantine, confinement, or sequestration. But, in the light of contemporary human knowledge, a law, which made a criminal offense of such a disease, would doubtless be universally thought to be an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Being an addict would no longer be a “moral affliction”, but be legally recognized as having a disease that needed treatment. While being in possession of illegal drugs was not a status offender and could be punished as a crime, from Robinson onward, treatment would become more acceptable and in some cases the preferred approach to the drug possessor. According to commentators, the Robinson decision spurred both the Nixon and Carter administrations to develop non-penal responses to drug offenders. In the 1970’s for example, TASC, a nationwide federal initiative, was designed to provide a bridge between the addict and the criminal justice system, providing treatment rather than punishment for the drug offender.

Four Roles of a Judge in a Community-Based Court

July 7, 2019June 15, 2015 by Jeff Tauber

The following article was published in 2009, in an attempt to define the importance of the Judge within the framework of a Community-Based Court (Drug, Mental Health, DUI Court, etc.), describing both the importance and limitations of the judicial position.

Download PDF

trainees-nashville

INTRODUCTION

About fifteen years ago, I described the role of the Drug Court Judge in a judge’s manual (J. Tauber, Drug Courts: A Judicial Manual, CJER; 1994). I wrote, ” A drug Court provides direction and focus through the leadership of a single judge”. A statement writ large, and in retrospect, an overstatement of the importance of the drug court judge. For while, the drug court judge is an important reason for the success of the drug court, he or she acts more an enabler than director. The major actor is “community” itself.

In effect, the drug court judge creates an environment in which successful drug court “communities” can thrive; where a “drug court team” comes together to institutionalize community-based structures for long-term success, and where a “community ” of drug court practitioners and participants exert systemic control over substantial numbers of serious drug offenders. So I suppose, if I were to write a definition of a Drug Court Judge today, it might simply read, ” a judge is the first among equals in a “drug court community”. [Note: the Drug Court Judge is generally described as a drug court practitioner and a member of the “Drug Court Team”, unless otherwise indicated.)

Over the past fifteen years much has happened in the drug court field. Over 2500 drug courts and other problem solving courts have been established. Both NADCP and NDCI now serve the field. And while I presided over my first Drug Court in 1990, I’ve learned a great deal over the years watching, listening and talking to thousands of drug court practitioners and participants across the country and around the globe. The world of the Drug Court, as well as the drug court practitioner and participant have changed irrevocably and continue to evolve.

I believe that The Community-Based Drug Court described is already in place to a substantial extent in every Drug Court in this country. We don’t always recognize the characteristics that define these court programs as community-involved, institutionalized, or systemic, but they are there. And while not all Drug Courts or Problem-Solving Courts have moved rapidly towards this Community-Based model, I am convinced that most successful ones are doing so. [Though the analysis focuses largely on the Drug Court, it is in most cases equally applicable to Problem-Solving Courts in general.]

This article is designed to give you a candid insider’s analysis of the role of the Drug Court Judge [DCJ] in the Community-Based Drug Court. In it, I will attempt to discuss the political, emotional, psychological and personal issues that many drug court or problem-solving court judges face. I will provide straightforward text and then one judge’s perspective (found in bold type)

Read more

Where Reentry is a Preentry Court

September 22, 2015September 12, 2013 by Jeff Tauber

The Dallas Preentry Court (click on photo above)