On the way to the municipal courthouse during the lunch hour yesterday I happened upon a discussion on the local public affairs show Houston Matters on KUHF. The topic was the state of Texas prisons. One of the guests was Ray Hill who hosts Execution Watch on KPFT and who used to host The Prison Show.
I've provided a link to the program but, unfortunately, the broadcast isn't broken down into sections.
The show contained a bit of a history lesson about the Texas prison system. Up until the last 30 years, Texas prisons used a building tender system to maintain discipline in the units. Prison officials would actually pick inmates to run the buildings on a daily basis. Predictably this led to greater violence and harsher conditions. That system was tossed out as a result of the Ruiz v. Estelle lawsuit that put Texas prisons under federal control for years.
What I found most interesting was the fact that the prison population has grown by nearly 900% over the past 30 years while the population of Texas has only doubled. What's wrong with this picture?
I think we can all agree that there are some folks behind bars that really need to be there. But that number is a whole lot less than you might think. The population explosion in our prisons went hand-in-hand with the failed war on drugs. Drug addicts don't need to be in prison. Prison therapy is not an effective method of helping folks cope with their addictive behavior.
Instead of spending roughly $18,000 a year to house an addict in prison, why don't we spend the money on community-based drug treatment programs? I've mentioned this before, but we need to change our model for handling drug addiction. We need to treat it as the public health problem that it is, not as a criminal problem.
We promote drug courts like they are some new panacea that will turn defendants clean with a little bit of tough love. The problem is that, no matter how much we candy it up, a drug court is still a criminal court; and criminal courts deal in acquittals and convictions. Criminal courts only function properly when there are adversarial parties arguing both sides of a case. Whenever we start to put prosecutors and defense lawyers on "teams" we are undermining the adversarial system and weakening the protections the Founding Fathers set out for criminal defendants.
Our jails and prisons are filled to the breaking point with folks whose only transgressions are an inability to get through the day without the use of illegal stimulants or depressants. Those folks don't need their liberty taken away. They need to be able to carry out their day-to-day lives with the addition of therapy provided by counselors who aren't interested in violating their probation and sending them to jail or prison.
Those folks don't need to be exposed to the culture of violence and depravity we find in our prisons. They shouldn't have to live with the fear of being sexually assaulted on a daily basis.
The system is clearly broken and is in dire need of fixing.
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label addiction. Show all posts
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Update: 500 murders and counting
On December 7, 1982, the State of Texas strapped Charles Brooks, Jr. down to a gurney and pumped poison into his veins. It was the first execution in the Lone Star State after the US Supreme Court lifted the ban on the death penalty.
Some 366 months later, on June 26, 2013, the State of Texas strapped Kimberly McCarthy down to a gurney and pumped poison into her veins. It was the 500th execution in the Lone Star State after the US Supreme Court lifted the ban on the death penalty.
In the meantime, all that death brought no one back to life. All that death failed to fill the holes left in the lives of the family and friends of the victims. All that death created new holes in the lives of the family and friends of the condemned inmates.
And, at least one of those folks strapped down to a gurney and killed by the power of the state was innocent. And that one instant should be enough to make us stand up and demand that the most intrusive power of the state be abolished. That one killing should be enough to disgust each and every one of us. But, it isn't.
As Ray Hill, the host of KPFT's Execution Watch, stated last night, ordinarily the punishment meted out in our criminal (in)justice system is all about the defendant but, when the death penalty is involved, it's all about us.
We have the power to show mercy. We have the power to tell our government that taking a life doesn't make up for the taking of another life. But we choose not to do that.
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. It's a tool we use because we're angry with what someone did. After 500 state-sponsored killings, folks are still going around killing other folks.
Ms. McCarthy's case should also make us all stop and think about the long-term effect of drugs on the human body. Would Ms. McCarthy have committed the murder for which she was killed had she not been addicted to crack cocaine? What effect did her exposure to cocaine have on her ability to reason? If her addiction to drugs had affected her so profoundly, shouldn't that have been taken into account during the punishment phase of her trial? Should the fact that she would have no access to cocaine behind bars been a factor in the jury's assessment of whether she would be a future threat to society?
Meanwhile, the death machine keeps humming away.
Some 366 months later, on June 26, 2013, the State of Texas strapped Kimberly McCarthy down to a gurney and pumped poison into her veins. It was the 500th execution in the Lone Star State after the US Supreme Court lifted the ban on the death penalty.
In the meantime, all that death brought no one back to life. All that death failed to fill the holes left in the lives of the family and friends of the victims. All that death created new holes in the lives of the family and friends of the condemned inmates.
And, at least one of those folks strapped down to a gurney and killed by the power of the state was innocent. And that one instant should be enough to make us stand up and demand that the most intrusive power of the state be abolished. That one killing should be enough to disgust each and every one of us. But, it isn't.
As Ray Hill, the host of KPFT's Execution Watch, stated last night, ordinarily the punishment meted out in our criminal (in)justice system is all about the defendant but, when the death penalty is involved, it's all about us.
We have the power to show mercy. We have the power to tell our government that taking a life doesn't make up for the taking of another life. But we choose not to do that.
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. It's a tool we use because we're angry with what someone did. After 500 state-sponsored killings, folks are still going around killing other folks.
Ms. McCarthy's case should also make us all stop and think about the long-term effect of drugs on the human body. Would Ms. McCarthy have committed the murder for which she was killed had she not been addicted to crack cocaine? What effect did her exposure to cocaine have on her ability to reason? If her addiction to drugs had affected her so profoundly, shouldn't that have been taken into account during the punishment phase of her trial? Should the fact that she would have no access to cocaine behind bars been a factor in the jury's assessment of whether she would be a future threat to society?
Meanwhile, the death machine keeps humming away.
Monday, February 11, 2013
The scourge of specialty courts
Anyone charged with a crime is entitled to their day in court. They are entitled to a trial by jury. They are entitled to confront the witnesses against them. They are entitled to put on evidence in their behalf. They are entitled to remain silent.
Upwards of 90% of cases in Harris County are resolved short of trial. The cases are either dismissed or the defendant enters into a plea bargain agreement with the state.
The cases are resolved because an investigation by both the state and defense either point out fatal flaws in the state's case or provide more than enough incentive for the defendant to cut his losses. Of course I am leaving out those cases in which defendants who couldn't make bail plead out in order to get out of jail - but that's another story for another day.
This traditional model in which a case is subjected to the crucible of truth in which two opposing advocates test the evidence presented to the court at trial.
None of this applies, however, if you find yourself in a specialty court - whether that be drug court, DWI court, mental health court or veteran's court. None of those courts is designed with the adversarial process in mind. The entire purpose of those courts is to get a defendant to enter into either a plea agreement or a pretrial diversion agreement and subject himself to monitoring for an extended period of time.
I'm sure courts for those with eating disorders or for those who wet the bed when they were little will be here before we know it.
Forget all about that crucible of truth. The only way a defendant in a specialty court gets relief is if he 'fesses up to what the state says he did. Everyone's part of the same team. We're all in this together, you know. Supposedly this is for the benefit of the defendant so he or she can seek treatment.
But, if someone needs treatment for a mental health or addiction issue, why are we using a sledgehammer (the courts) instead of a scalpel (professionals) to fix the problem? In the real world treatment works in fits and starts. Folks tend to fall off the wagon every now and then on their way to recovery. Those episodes should be treated for what they are - part of the recovery process - and not as a reason for the criminal (in)justice system to get involved.
If we are being honest with ourselves we will admit that you don't treat mental illness in the criminal courthouse - much like you wouldn't conduct surgery in the middle of the courtroom.
If the goal is to treat those folks with addictions so that they can overcome those addictions, then they need to be in rehab or a similar setting. They need counseling and support in order to beat back their demons. They don't need a judge holding a sword over their head. Fear is not a good motivator. The best motivator is a desire to kick the addictive behavior. Treatment works best when the patient is there because he or she decides it's what they need to do.
As for those with mental health problems, they need psychological or psychiatric help. But that therapy can only be successful if the patient wants it to be. A person seeking treatment because they have to is less likely to be successful than a patient who's there because he wants treatment. Besides, if a person has a mental health issue that's so severe they need to be transferred to a mental health caseload - then we probably have a problem with the requisite intent to commit the crime.
Maybe there is a noble purpose behind this growing trend of specialty courts - but the reality on the ground is that they subvert our criminal (in)justice system by depriving the accused of their rightful day in court.
Upwards of 90% of cases in Harris County are resolved short of trial. The cases are either dismissed or the defendant enters into a plea bargain agreement with the state.
The cases are resolved because an investigation by both the state and defense either point out fatal flaws in the state's case or provide more than enough incentive for the defendant to cut his losses. Of course I am leaving out those cases in which defendants who couldn't make bail plead out in order to get out of jail - but that's another story for another day.
This traditional model in which a case is subjected to the crucible of truth in which two opposing advocates test the evidence presented to the court at trial.
None of this applies, however, if you find yourself in a specialty court - whether that be drug court, DWI court, mental health court or veteran's court. None of those courts is designed with the adversarial process in mind. The entire purpose of those courts is to get a defendant to enter into either a plea agreement or a pretrial diversion agreement and subject himself to monitoring for an extended period of time.
I'm sure courts for those with eating disorders or for those who wet the bed when they were little will be here before we know it.
Forget all about that crucible of truth. The only way a defendant in a specialty court gets relief is if he 'fesses up to what the state says he did. Everyone's part of the same team. We're all in this together, you know. Supposedly this is for the benefit of the defendant so he or she can seek treatment.
But, if someone needs treatment for a mental health or addiction issue, why are we using a sledgehammer (the courts) instead of a scalpel (professionals) to fix the problem? In the real world treatment works in fits and starts. Folks tend to fall off the wagon every now and then on their way to recovery. Those episodes should be treated for what they are - part of the recovery process - and not as a reason for the criminal (in)justice system to get involved.
If we are being honest with ourselves we will admit that you don't treat mental illness in the criminal courthouse - much like you wouldn't conduct surgery in the middle of the courtroom.
If the goal is to treat those folks with addictions so that they can overcome those addictions, then they need to be in rehab or a similar setting. They need counseling and support in order to beat back their demons. They don't need a judge holding a sword over their head. Fear is not a good motivator. The best motivator is a desire to kick the addictive behavior. Treatment works best when the patient is there because he or she decides it's what they need to do.
As for those with mental health problems, they need psychological or psychiatric help. But that therapy can only be successful if the patient wants it to be. A person seeking treatment because they have to is less likely to be successful than a patient who's there because he wants treatment. Besides, if a person has a mental health issue that's so severe they need to be transferred to a mental health caseload - then we probably have a problem with the requisite intent to commit the crime.
Maybe there is a noble purpose behind this growing trend of specialty courts - but the reality on the ground is that they subvert our criminal (in)justice system by depriving the accused of their rightful day in court.
Friday, January 25, 2013
So what's Plan B?
Former Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos angered many in the criminal (in)justice establishment (including my colleague Murray Newman) when she announced that her office would not prosecute felony drug cases when the drugs seized weighed less than .01 grams.
Her decision not to prosecute these so-called "trace cases" was based on her belief that the defense should have the opportunity to have the substance re-tested by an independent lab. If the amount of dope was under .01 grams, there wasn't enough to permit a second test.
She also made the decision to combat overcrowding in the Harris County Jail. Many of these cases had to do with crack cocaine or methamphetamine residue found in a pipe. If the defendant couldn't afford to post bail, he or she would sit in the county jail until their case was resolved.
The policy also took into account the inequity of charging folks with state jail felonies for possessing a less than usable amount of dope.
Well, those days are gone now.
As expected, the new District Attorney, Mike Anderson, announced on Thursday that he was taking Ms. Lykos' policy, wadding it up and tossing it in the trash. No more pussy-footing around. No more coddling these little dopeheads. Nope. That won't cut in in the Anderson administration.
Residue in that pipe? You're going down hard. Felony conviction. Probation if you're lucky.
It makes you wonder just what Mike Anderson has been smoking. People carrying around glass pipes with dope residue aren't peddling crack and crystal. They are addicts. They have a problem. Arresting them and tossing them in jail isn't going to solve it. Treating it as a criminal problem won't solve it. Addiction is a public health issue and needs to be treated as such.
Oh, Mr. Anderson said those folks need treatment and he could see them being placed on probation where they can be monitored.
Well, if you're really concerned about their well-being, Mr. Anderson, you need to throw away the criminal (in)justice model of treating drug addiction and let the medical professionals deal with it. Using the stick of prison to force addicts to eat the carrot of treatment hasn't solved the problem and won't solve it.
State District Judge Michael McSpadden, hardly who you would consider a flaming liberal, thinks it's nuts to prosecute those cases as felonies. You might want to listen to what he has to say, Mr. Anderson. You might learn a thing or two along the way.
Mike Anderson's plan will result in more people being tagged with felony convictions and in a jail that will be busting at the seams. All those new detainees are going to have to be housed someplace and that means more contracts with other counties to house our inmates. Or maybe yet another referendum on building a new jail.
Ms. Lykos may have made some serious missteps in her four years in charge of the DA's Office, but her policy on trace cases was an instance in which she got it right. Now we'll just have to wait and see how long it takes for Mike Anderson to realize that, too.
Her decision not to prosecute these so-called "trace cases" was based on her belief that the defense should have the opportunity to have the substance re-tested by an independent lab. If the amount of dope was under .01 grams, there wasn't enough to permit a second test.
She also made the decision to combat overcrowding in the Harris County Jail. Many of these cases had to do with crack cocaine or methamphetamine residue found in a pipe. If the defendant couldn't afford to post bail, he or she would sit in the county jail until their case was resolved.
The policy also took into account the inequity of charging folks with state jail felonies for possessing a less than usable amount of dope.
Well, those days are gone now.
As expected, the new District Attorney, Mike Anderson, announced on Thursday that he was taking Ms. Lykos' policy, wadding it up and tossing it in the trash. No more pussy-footing around. No more coddling these little dopeheads. Nope. That won't cut in in the Anderson administration.
Residue in that pipe? You're going down hard. Felony conviction. Probation if you're lucky.
It makes you wonder just what Mike Anderson has been smoking. People carrying around glass pipes with dope residue aren't peddling crack and crystal. They are addicts. They have a problem. Arresting them and tossing them in jail isn't going to solve it. Treating it as a criminal problem won't solve it. Addiction is a public health issue and needs to be treated as such.
Oh, Mr. Anderson said those folks need treatment and he could see them being placed on probation where they can be monitored.
Well, if you're really concerned about their well-being, Mr. Anderson, you need to throw away the criminal (in)justice model of treating drug addiction and let the medical professionals deal with it. Using the stick of prison to force addicts to eat the carrot of treatment hasn't solved the problem and won't solve it.
State District Judge Michael McSpadden, hardly who you would consider a flaming liberal, thinks it's nuts to prosecute those cases as felonies. You might want to listen to what he has to say, Mr. Anderson. You might learn a thing or two along the way.
Mike Anderson's plan will result in more people being tagged with felony convictions and in a jail that will be busting at the seams. All those new detainees are going to have to be housed someplace and that means more contracts with other counties to house our inmates. Or maybe yet another referendum on building a new jail.
Ms. Lykos may have made some serious missteps in her four years in charge of the DA's Office, but her policy on trace cases was an instance in which she got it right. Now we'll just have to wait and see how long it takes for Mike Anderson to realize that, too.
Friday, August 19, 2011
I want it now!
Fresh on the heels of the redefining of addiction comes this study of how cocaine addicts value money and drugs.
Researchers conducted an experiment with 47 cocaine addicts to test their preferences when it comes to money or drugs. The expectation was that the addicts would choose cocaine, even a lesser amount, over money. That's not quite what happened.
The addicts wanted their prize - and they wanted it now. It didn't matter to them whether they were paying a steep price for the privilege of having the cash or coke in their hands now. It would seem that this finding dovetails nicely with the new definition of addiction offered by the American Society for Addiction Medicine.
When we think rationally, we look at both the present value and future value of any given choice. If the future value is greater than the present value plus opportunity cost, we're more than happy to bide our time. If the equation works out the other way, carpe diem, baby.
With the addict, however, there is no consideration of the future. It's now! now! now! The addict has lost the ability to reason and to calculate which option offers the biggest reward. He is living in the present without the slightest conception of the future.
Does that give us a clue on how to fight addiction? With our jails and prisons being filled with more and more addicts, maybe it's about time we reconsider how we deal with addiction.
H/T Freakonomics
Researchers conducted an experiment with 47 cocaine addicts to test their preferences when it comes to money or drugs. The expectation was that the addicts would choose cocaine, even a lesser amount, over money. That's not quite what happened.
Forty-seven cocaine addicts (who were all seeking treatment) were asked to guess the number of grams of cocaine worth $1,000. They were each then given a series of choices: cocaine now versus more cocaine later; money now versus more money later; cocaine now versus money later; or money now versus cocaine later. The initial amount offered for the immediate choice has half of the full value, and the delayed amount was always the full value. Preference was almost exclusively given to the money now option, according to the study’s lead researcher, Warren K. Bickel, a psychology professor at Virginia Tech, and director of the Advanced Recovery Research Center there.It turns out that addicts prefer cash in hand over a stash of drugs - even if that cash is less than half the value of the cocaine offered in the future.
The addicts wanted their prize - and they wanted it now. It didn't matter to them whether they were paying a steep price for the privilege of having the cash or coke in their hands now. It would seem that this finding dovetails nicely with the new definition of addiction offered by the American Society for Addiction Medicine.
When we think rationally, we look at both the present value and future value of any given choice. If the future value is greater than the present value plus opportunity cost, we're more than happy to bide our time. If the equation works out the other way, carpe diem, baby.
With the addict, however, there is no consideration of the future. It's now! now! now! The addict has lost the ability to reason and to calculate which option offers the biggest reward. He is living in the present without the slightest conception of the future.
Does that give us a clue on how to fight addiction? With our jails and prisons being filled with more and more addicts, maybe it's about time we reconsider how we deal with addiction.
H/T Freakonomics
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
A new way to look at addiction
One of the first tenets of the criminal (in)justice system we are taught in law school is that for there to be a crime there must be both an act and intent. We aren't supposed to punish people who have a bad thought without a corresponding bad act, nor are we to punish those who might commit a bad act without the intent to do so.
Most crimes listed in the penal codes in these United States require that the actor act with the intent to commit the bad act. He may act intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. In some cases the level of intent determines the severity of the crime, while in others, as long as their is intent, there's a crime.
Driving while intoxicated, however, has always had a special place in the penal code, for there is no criminal intent required. DWI is, for all intents and purposes, a strict liability crime. In other words, if you're driving and you're intoxicated, you've committed the crime, regardless of whether you intended to drive drunk or not.
Now comes word that addiction is a brain disorder and not a case in which someone behaves badly. The American Society for Addiction Medicine (which, in and of itself, may not be such a grand idea) has redefined the term addiction.
Alcoholism is one of this country's worst addictions. It destroys bodies, lives and families. Yet try explaining to a gung ho young prosecutor that your client is an addict, not a criminal. See how far that gets you.
Now if the point of the criminal (in)justice system is to punish those who break the law and provide a disincentive for others to commit criminal acts, how does it serve a purpose to punish a person who has an addiction? If the person is acting due to a brain disorder, does the application of the criminal law benefit either that person or society? Is it just to punish a person who has a disease or a disorder?
But it sure does help you get elected judge.
Malus actus + Mens rea = Crime
Most crimes listed in the penal codes in these United States require that the actor act with the intent to commit the bad act. He may act intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. In some cases the level of intent determines the severity of the crime, while in others, as long as their is intent, there's a crime.
Driving while intoxicated, however, has always had a special place in the penal code, for there is no criminal intent required. DWI is, for all intents and purposes, a strict liability crime. In other words, if you're driving and you're intoxicated, you've committed the crime, regardless of whether you intended to drive drunk or not.
Now comes word that addiction is a brain disorder and not a case in which someone behaves badly. The American Society for Addiction Medicine (which, in and of itself, may not be such a grand idea) has redefined the term addiction.
Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Addiction affects neurotransmission and interactions within reward structures of the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex, basal forebrain and amygdala, such that motivational hierarchies are altered and addictive behaviors, which may or may not include alcohol and other drug use, supplant healthy, self-care related behaviors. Addiction also affects neurotransmission and interactions between cortical and hippocampal circuits and brain reward structures, such that the memory of previous exposures to rewards (such as food, sex, alcohol and other drugs) leads to a biological and behavioral response to external cues, in turn triggering craving and/or engagement in addictive behaviors.
Addiction is more than a behavioral disorder. Features of addiction include aspects of a person’s behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and interactions with others, including a person’s ability to relate to members of their family, to members of their community, to their own psychological state, and to things that transcend their daily experience.And no, since I'm not a neurologist, I don't know what all of that means. What the ASAM seems to be saying is that addictive behavior is the result of chemical reactions in the brain. If this is indeed the case, should we re-evaluate the manner in which we handle drug and alcohol crimes? Punishing an addict does nothing to "cure" the problem. If a person has a brain disorder before entering prison or court-ordered supervision, that person will still have a brain disorder when they leave prison or are discharged from probation. We wouldn't be punishing folks for their bad acts, we'd be punishing them for something beyond their control.
"The behavioral problem is a result of brain dysfunction," agrees Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Alcoholism is one of this country's worst addictions. It destroys bodies, lives and families. Yet try explaining to a gung ho young prosecutor that your client is an addict, not a criminal. See how far that gets you.
Now if the point of the criminal (in)justice system is to punish those who break the law and provide a disincentive for others to commit criminal acts, how does it serve a purpose to punish a person who has an addiction? If the person is acting due to a brain disorder, does the application of the criminal law benefit either that person or society? Is it just to punish a person who has a disease or a disorder?
Even if you're not biologically vulnerable to begin with, perhaps you try alcohol or drugs to cope with a stressful or painful environment, Volkow says. Whatever the reason, the brain's reward system can change as a chemical named dopamine conditions it to rituals and routines that are linked to getting something you've found pleasurable, whether it's a pack of cigarettes or a few drinks or even overeating. When someone's truly addicted, that warped system keeps them going back even after the brain gets so used to the high that it's no longer pleasurable.As I've said on numerous occasions, our criminal (in)justice system is not designed to heal the sick. It's designed to punish and rehabilitate. As long as we treat medical conditions as legal problems, we are never going to give folks the help they really need. The system isn't working. We're forcing too many people into the criminal (in)justice system who don't need to be there. Branding an addict as a criminal for life does nothing to help him or her get over their addiction.
But it sure does help you get elected judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)