4 ms·

Former public defender here: laws in CA already have rehabilitative programs. LA and San Bernardino County already have fairly large rehab programs for drug off

Former public defender here: laws in CA already have rehabilitative programs. LA and San Bernardino County already have fairly large rehab programs for drug offenders (aka "diversion"). Diversion is actually the preferred process for first-time (non-dealing) drug offenders. However, repeat offenders are not entitled to diversion, and due to capacity constraints, must generally surrender their spot to first-time drug offenders (the best analogy I can think of is Disney's Lightning Lanes vs Standby Lines), because first-time offenders are more likely to benefit from diversion than a repeat offender for whom diversion clearly did not work. There are simply too many drug users for the rehab programs to handle. It's not a matter of just increasing the budget for rehab, because more than half of the drug-related offenders are repeat offenders who have already gone through rehab and relapsed.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I am familiar with the current system and its failings. This is why I believe that the only real solution is to have start doing real rehabilitation in the prison system. If an addict or mentally ill person is repeatedly harming others or breaking laws, the only solutions are rehabilitation or incarceration. The problem is that we are failing to rehabilitate and following that, we are failing to incarcerate. I don't see how a parallel judicial system of "care courts" solves this fundamental problem.
- gamblor956 5y ago
  If you were familiar with the current system, then you would know that "diversion" isn't just a parallel judicial system, it includes rehab as a fundamental part of the process. Or in other words, the solution you claim to want is already part of the system. If an addict or mentally ill person is repeatedly harming others..., the only solutions are rehabilitation or incarceration. The problem is that we are failing to rehabilitate and following that, we are failing to incarcerate. Non-violent addicts are eligible for diversion, which means a separate judicial process that includes rehab. But only first-time drug offenders are entitled to diversion in lieu of incarceration. A person cannot be forced to rehabilitate: they must choose to rehabilitate. If rehab fails, it is because the addict has failed, not the system. Violent offenders are generally not eligible for bail, and are not eligible for alternative sentencing options like diversion, home detention, half-way housing, or early release. They are simply incarcerated in jail, prison, or a mental hospital. We are definitely are not failing to incarcerate these individuals...once they commit violent crimes. The problem is that we simply can't incarcerate them until they commit a violent crime because homeless rights advocates have convinced judges that these types of individuals shouldn't be incarcerated because their too mentally ill to understand what they did is wrong. (Yes, the very thing that makes them more dangerous is also the grounds for not doing anything about it until someone else gets seriously hurt.) Addicts (even violent offenders) can participate in rehab in prison. If they are eligible for it, want it, and there is space in their local facility's program. They cannot be forced to participate in rehab. Mentally ill individuals who cause harm go through the process of "civil commitment" whereby they are committed to a mental hospital for treatment and remain for at least the duration of the prison sentence they would have served for the crime if not mentally ill. Depending on the extent of their illness, and the role it played in their violent actions, they may remain committed for significantly longer than they would have if they had served time in jail (and may even remain committed indefinitely).
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I agree with everything you said, but don't see how it answers my fundamental question and criticism. I don't see how this system of "care courts" is doing anything new that the existing court system cant or dont. It seems to propose doing the exact same thing we already do in courts, but under a new name and hopes for a different outcome. Can you explain how it will be different?

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I am familiar with the current system and its failings. This is why I believe that the only real solution is to have start doing real rehabilitation in the prison system. If an addict or mentally ill person is repeatedly harming others or breaking laws, the only solutions are rehabilitation or incarceration. The problem is that we are failing to rehabilitate and following that, we are failing to incarcerate. I don't see how a parallel judicial system of "care courts" solves this fundamental problem.

gamblor956 5y ago
If you were familiar with the current system, then you would know that "diversion" isn't just a parallel judicial system, it includes rehab as a fundamental part of the process. Or in other words, the solution you claim to want is already part of the system. If an addict or mentally ill person is repeatedly harming others..., the only solutions are rehabilitation or incarceration. The problem is that we are failing to rehabilitate and following that, we are failing to incarcerate. Non-violent addicts are eligible for diversion, which means a separate judicial process that includes rehab. But only first-time drug offenders are entitled to diversion in lieu of incarceration. A person cannot be forced to rehabilitate: they must choose to rehabilitate. If rehab fails, it is because the addict has failed, not the system. Violent offenders are generally not eligible for bail, and are not eligible for alternative sentencing options like diversion, home detention, half-way housing, or early release. They are simply incarcerated in jail, prison, or a mental hospital. We are definitely are not failing to incarcerate these individuals...once they commit violent crimes. The problem is that we simply can't incarcerate them until they commit a violent crime because homeless rights advocates have convinced judges that these types of individuals shouldn't be incarcerated because their too mentally ill to understand what they did is wrong. (Yes, the very thing that makes them more dangerous is also the grounds for not doing anything about it until someone else gets seriously hurt.) Addicts (even violent offenders) can participate in rehab in prison. If they are eligible for it, want it, and there is space in their local facility's program. They cannot be forced to participate in rehab. Mentally ill individuals who cause harm go through the process of "civil commitment" whereby they are committed to a mental hospital for treatment and remain for at least the duration of the prison sentence they would have served for the crime if not mentally ill. Depending on the extent of their illness, and the role it played in their violent actions, they may remain committed for significantly longer than they would have if they had served time in jail (and may even remain committed indefinitely).
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I agree with everything you said, but don't see how it answers my fundamental question and criticism. I don't see how this system of "care courts" is doing anything new that the existing court system cant or dont. It seems to propose doing the exact same thing we already do in courts, but under a new name and hopes for a different outcome. Can you explain how it will be different?