A Solvable Problem

Sociology

Is the Cure Worse than the Problem?

Mandatory Prison Time in Drug and Alcohol Cases

Drugs and alcohol have for years taken center stage in much public policy debate. Blamed for numerous accidents, fatalities, and a wide range of other social ills, physiological, psychological, and political experts have sought ways both to control and to curb the effects of these substances. Intoxication has been blamed for serious traffic accidents as well as for a host of other criminal problems such as theft, assault, and murder. Drugs and alcohol have likewise been seen as a major source of child abuse and neglect. Favored treatments for these conditions have varied considerably, often swinging from the extremes of rehabilitation and punishment. Indeed, much current policy on the matter appears to endorse both approaches, or one followed by the other, depending on the situation. As medical experts urge greater awareness of the problems of addiction and misuse of drugs and alcohol, legislators push for mandatory jail time and lengthier prison sentences. Individuals have been forced to attend classes on drug and alcohol abuse, or have been compelled to enroll in programs at rehabilitation facilities or face incarceration. Still others find themselves imprisoned as repeat offenders, or for the first-me offense of possessing too much of a particular controlled substance. None of these approaches seems to work absolutely. Recidivism is extremely common. Many question the wisdom of "forced" rehabilitation, and the cruelty of harsh punishments for all too human frailties. A close look at these "treatments" is obviously demanded by the current seemingly intractable situation.

The effects on American society of mandatory prison sentences for drug offenses can easily be seen by a look at the figures for incarceration. From 1980 to 1997, imprisonment for drug offenses increased by an astounding 1,040%, while the number of persons in prison for drug offenses in 2003 exceeded the total number of persons imprisoned for all offenses combined in 1980.

Such large scale imprisonment of persons for what are often otherwise non-violent, or even consensual offenses, has caused considerable dislocation in many communities and has, in fact, been strongly criticized for affecting minority groups out of all proportion to other groups. As described by Dorothy E. Roberts, "The War on Drugs became its own prisoner-generating machine, producing incarcerations rates that 'defy gravity and continue to grow even as crime rates are dropping.'"

African-Americans continue to make up an enormous percentage of the prison population with many of these offenses being drug-related. By incarcerating so many people for drug offenses alone, families are broken up and youthful dreams blighted. In minority communities across America, imprisonment has become almost a rite of passage, even the most minor cases of drug possession serving as the entree to a world of crime, and economic and social disadvantage. The high rates of imprisonment only add to the existing problems of broken homes, lack of education, lack of employment opportunities, and lack of socialization in the large society of the United States.

Worse still, though drugs themselves are frequently blamed for the problems of the inner city and those of minority communities in general, it is difficult to see how mandatory sentencing contributes to the solution of the "drug problem." "The mechanical, emotionless evaluation of human beings under the Guidelines [for sentencing]," contributes to a view of drug user as somehow defective pieces of machinery that are at best warehoused until they can be repaired.

Of course, attempts at "repair" have been made, though these too often take the form of sentencing programs that use imprisonment as the "stick" with rehabilitation as the "carrot." Those guilty of relatively minor drug or alcohol offenses are given the opportunity of completing drug and alcohol treatment programs, rather than being sent to prison. On one level, even a forced trip to a rehabilitation center may constitute an intervention that lays the groundwork for future successful interventions, or prepares the drug or alcohol user for future acceptance of help.

Though this may not be the real intention of such mandatory sentencing options, it is; nevertheless, one with noble intentions, and represents at least the desire to treat addicts and abusers as human beings with genuine human problems and concerns. Still, the path to rehabilitation may be successful for some by helping them to recognize their problems and avoid prison. Rehabilitation programs can assist those convicted of drug and alcohol offenses by causing these individuals to look more closely at the specific actions that resulted in their becoming entangled in the court system. Non-productive habits can be modified, replaced by more socially acceptable methods of dealing with personal difficulties. In fact, one of the uses of rehabilitation may be the psychological analysis that enables those convicted of drug and alcohol crimes to comprehend how it is that their choices negatively affect those around them, how their continued substance abuse can have serious consequences for their families, friends, and the larger community.

Rehabilitation is a particularly attractive option for youthful offenders who might otherwise suffer further damage if remanded to a prison environment. For among the social costs that must be recognized, are not only those arising from the original condition of drug and alcohol abuse, but also the ramifications of incarceration:

The negative long-range implications for youth and society can only be imagined. Youth are housed in prisons alongside adults and either subject to abuse, sexual and physical, or exposed to the knowledge the older inmates possess concerning crime. Neither situation lends itself to rehabilitation for youth.

Imprisonment exposes youth to influences that may only condition them for a life of crime. While paying the penalty for what began as relatively minor offenses they became increasingly inured to the worst side of society, cultivating relationships that make only make it difficult for them to continue their education or to become gainfully employed. They runt he risk of being lured into further criminal activity, either directly as a result of those they meet in prison, or as a result of what is done to them in prison by those same individuals. Prison, while meant in many cases to reform, often accomplishes the opposite. Increasingly those directly involved in such cases are coming to the realization that prison sentences for small-time drug and alcohol offenders is not in the interests of the community or the individual. Jurors are calling for rehabilitation where the law would have them sitting in judgment. In one recent case in New York, the selection of jurors was complicated by the fact that, "It was [for] the sale of a small amount of drugs. Several jurors said, 'We don't want to do this trial. Let's put him in treatment'.... [One of the lawyers] said, 'There is a presumption of innocence, not a presumption of guilt.' That is how strong the community feels about drug treatment."

That prospective jurors are willing to contrast the relative "benefits" of prison with those of rehabilitation are a welcome sign that perhaps many are beginning to look at the drugs and alcohol abuse as more than a criminal problem.

As if to show the disingenuousness of the current mandatory guidelines, the war on drugs is being used to maintain and finance an entire prison-industrial complex. A flurry of prison building has been conducted ostensibly in response to the need for more cells because of the greatly increased number of those sentenced for drug and drug-related crimes. Interestingly, some of these new facilities, such as Hopkins Park, a women's prison in Illinois, are being designed as settings for drug rehabilitation and treatment.

The Hopkins scheme has been described as a "holistic approach to drug rehabilitation," where treatment will involve prisoners in a thorough re-evaluation of their priorities, a building up of their self-esteem, and a look at their roles as women, wives, and mothers.

Apparently the argument is one that the controlled environment of the prison can actually assist those most in need by forcing them to look at the realties of their lives in a way that could be accomplished by no other form of treatment. The prison system and its political allies benefit by getting brand new, expensive facilities, increased personnel, and additional jobs for specially-trained professionals while those in need reap the rewards of 24/7 attention and care. Typically state systems, as opposed to Federal guidelines, take into account a wider range of conditions when passing sentence on drug and alcohol offenders. Where the federal guidelines appear to spell out situations rather precisely, many states still permit a considerable amount of leeway with broader sentencing ranges, more liberal release criteria, and numerous formal and informal programs, such as rehabilitation, that can be tailored to each defendant.