Models for Reform of the Criminal Justice System in ConnecticutPrepared by: Sharon
Herzberger·Professor of Psychology Prepared for: Hartford Areas Rally Together·660
Park Street Trinity Center for Neighborhoods In this summary I provide key details of a variety of recent reform efforts. Most of the information is derived from reports found on the National Institute of Justice website (location is http://www.ncjrs.org/) and on the NCJRS Document Data Base on CD-ROM, which is available throught the Trinity College library and many other college and university libraries. Other information was generously supplied by individuals associated with these reform efforts.
PROSECUTION OF DRUG OFFENSES
Night Court The benefits and problems associated with a drug night court are summarized in a report entitled Assessment of the Feasibility of Drug Night Courts. Published in June, 1993, the report noted that Cook County, Illinois, had the only currently operational drug night court. Officials there and in other locales that had run night court were surveyed. Drug night courts are appropriate because drug cases rarely call for civilian witnesses, expertise in handling drug matters is enhanced among court officials, and hearings are less likely to be postponed as officials have to attend to more "pressing" cases. Key findings that are discussed:
Previously, Brooklyn, New York, had a felony night court in the early 1980's. They held trials between 6 and 11. Jurors and witnesses appreciated being able to continue their jobs during the day. Vans were provided to escort jurors and witnesses home for security reasons. However, the union for the Legal Aid Society would not allow its attorneys to work at night. Los Angeles held night court from 1985 through 1991. No reported problems occurred with this court, except that the judges resisted the idea and eventually refused to staff the court.
Other Innovations Involving Drug Case Disposition The report, The Drug Court Movement, cites the findings of a conference held in Miami, one of the cities with a flourishing drug court, on core elements of a drug court. Key features include a judge who holds the offender personally and publicly responsible for treatment. The judge works with a team (prosecutor, defender, drug treatment specialists) to select treatment and monitor progress. Expedited drug case management reviews a demonstration program conducted in Middlesex County, New Jersy (New Brunswick), Multnomah County, Oregon (Portland), and Philadelphia. The program aimed to increase court efficiency, reduce the number of defendants who fail to appear, reduce pretrial jail stays, and provide more effective treatment. Court officials first screened out difficult cases and those involving violent crime. And they used more social services than other branches of the court system because of the emphasis on rehabilitation and counseling. No information is provided in the report to document the effects of expedited drug case management to the system, the offender, or the community surrounding this court. A report just published in January of 1996 summarizes Predicting Pretrial Misconduct with Drug Tests of Arrestees. The researchers asked whether drug testing of those arrested would enable judges and prosecutors to better predict who would commit another crime between the time of arrest and the case disposition, and thereby use the information to set bail. Drug testing is expensive; so it is not routinely done. The evidence was inconsistent about this strategy, with heroin use predicting rearrest during the pretrial period and cocaine use predicting failure to appear in court. No other testing effects were found. One problem is that the urine test did not distinguish between light and heavy users, and the report recommends multiple tests and hair testing. This project was undertaken in Washington, D.C., Milwaukee, Maricopa County, Arizona, Dade County, Florida, and Manhattan. Finally, a program in Maricopa County, Arizona, called Do Drugs, Do Time aims to reduce demand for drugs by diverting to treatment offenders with no prior felony history. Key features include:
VICTIM AND WITNESS INTIMIDATION REFORMS
A report, entitled Victim and Witness Intimidation: New Developments and Emerging Responses, published last October, estimates that in some gang neighborhoods as much as 100 percent of the violent crimes committed involve intimidation to witnesses or, equally damaging, to whole neighborhoods. Traditionally police and prosecutors have approached intimidation by warning the defendant, through aggressive prosecution of intimidation attempts, and through use of the witness protection programs. Other approaches:
PROGRAMS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Juvenile crime is a major focus of attention among criminal justice experts because a large number of youth are entering the "crime-prone years." The report, Delinquency Prevention Works, lists dozens of programs that are in effect throughout the country designed to prevent juvenile crime. Among featured programs are Communities That Care in Seattle. A community prevention board, consisting of key community leaders (mayor, council members, law enforcement officials, judges, school superintendents, business leaders) is formed and educated about comprehensive prevention efforts. The board also analyzes the most serious risks for youth violence and works to create programs to eliminate these. The community has effectively planned and implemented a set of interventions through this effort, but no evaluation of the consequences is noted. Operation Weed and Seed (run out of the Justice Department in Washington) is another comprehensive community program that calls upon multiple agencies to coordinate efforts to prevent crime through law enforcement, community policing, prevention, and neighborhood restoration. Other programs are listed for each targeted age group. For example, DARE is listed as one of the promising programs for 7 to 12 year olds. For 13 to 18 year olds two effective programs are listed: Louisiana State Youth Opportunities Unlimited and Boys and Girls Clubs (noted in an evaluation as reducing youth crime by 13 percent). Programs that are not effective include those with primary emphasis on peer relations. Conflict resolution programs have not been evaluated. Programs that may do harm include gang streetworkers, Guardian Angels, peer counseling, and mentoring relationships that are uncritically supportive. This report also points to violence within the home as a major cause of youth violence and gang activity outside the home. Another report, Curfew: An Answer to Juvenile Delinquency and Victimization, reviews the many curfew-related programs around the country that have sprung up since 1990. The report discusses how to institute a curfew that will stand up to constitutional scrutiny (must demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest in establishing a curfew and that the program is narrowly tailored to fit the community's needs without unduly infringing upon individual rights). Here is a summary of some of the programs noted:
Another program in Louisiana is discussed in a paper entitled Juvenile job placements as alternatives to incarceration, by C. A. Bauer. Because of a paucity of funds to hire youth for a summer youth employment program, administrators in Louisianna took a creative approach. They hired a job creator, a businessperson with experience working with youth offenders. This hiring led to further funding through grants and a job referral system that could place more than 6 youth per month. Problems with the program include:
The paper Beyond Rehabilitation: In search of a constructive alternative to the judicial response to juvenile crime (by L. Walgrave) presents the philosophy underlying the use of restorative justice programs, including the components of mediation between victim and offender, reparation and community service, and reconciliation and welcoming of the offender who has completed the restoration process. The paper cites some studies that showed decreased recidivism among those who complete the program (although it cites other studies showing no effect on recidivism). Also cited is evidence that victims are willing to participate in mediation programs and their satisfaction post-participation is high. For information on juvenile programs, please see also the Utah Community Service and Restitution Program, summarized under the section "Community Initiatives."
ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF INCARCERATION
A variety of alternative forms of incarceration are the topics of the papers summarized below:
PRISON OVERCROWDING
Efforts to reduce prison overcrowding in general or by releasing selected inmates are described in these publications:
ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION
Those interested in alternative sanctions should also see the section below entitled "Community Initiatives." Developing and implementing alternatives to incarceration: A problem of planned change in criminal justice, by A. T. Harland and P. W. Harris, reviews the issues and strategies to be considered by any organization that plans to bring about changes in the criminal justice system and, in particular, in the system of incarceration. S. J. Rackmill in An analysis of home confinement as a sanction discusses various issues related to home confinement as an alternative to pretrial or posttrial incarceration. The article reviews issues such as how to electronically monitor those assigned to the home, criteria for selecting eligible offenders, staffing needs, and exceptions to 24 hour confinement. Home confinement is cost-effective, when compared to incarceration, and especially in jurisdictions where offenders are required to pay part or all of the monitoring fee. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this program is not extensive. The author notes that during 1989 in the Federal system in 5.4 percent of 168 cases the offender failed to appear in court when called, compared to the 2.8 percent failure to appear rate among all other offenders. Rearrest during the confinement occurred among 3.6 percent of the felons and among 2.4 percent of misdemeanor cases. This contrasts with other 1.9 and 1.0 percent of other offenders nationally. The statistics may be misleading, however, because people were specially selected for home confinement; so special characteristics of their cases prevents proper assessment of the effectiveness of this method.
COMMUNITY INITIATIVES
Two recent publications may be of general interest. First, an August 1996 NIJ Journal on Communities: Mobilizing against crime, making partnerships work. Among topics discussed are:
The second publication is the OJJDP Matrix of community-based initiatives (September, 1995; a summary appears annually). This issue lists programs sponsored by HUD, DOJ, HHS, DOE, DOL, and a variety of other sources, including private initiatives. None of the areas you mentioned are specifically listed as target issues for the sponsoring groups, but the publication lists the names and phone numbers of many potential contact persons. Most initiatives listed are devoted to strengthening families and reducing juvenile crime. Much of the literature on community initiatives focuses on the burgeoning community court movement. The community court movement is a widespread effort for neighborhoods to assume more control over the crime that occurs within their territory or community. These efforts often involve rapid disposition of cases, community involvement in the determination of the penalty, restitution or reparation for the offenses committed, and then rehabilitation within the community setting. Selected programs are summarized below: Community Court of New York The Community Court, recently established in New York City (see In New York City, a Community Court and a New Legal Culture), focuses on low-level offenses that destroy community morale and holds defendants immediately accountable for their offense. The court also addresses issues underlying the problems that may have led to the offense. Key features:
Vermont Model This summary is based on a conversation with John Perry, Chief of Planning and Evaluation, Department of Corrections, Vermont, 802-241-2442, and a conversation with Tom Quinn of the National Institute of Justice, 202-514-6235. The Vermont Model is based upon a belief that reparation is important to rehabilitation. The courts in Vermont have two tracks:
The reparative track is not designed to divert offenders from jail or to reduce prison overcrowding. It is to rationally identify people who will profit from reparation rather than incarceration. This program does have the effect, however, of creating space in the prisons to house for longer periods those who do pose a risk to the community. Offenders who have been convicted of a crime of low severity (misdemeanor property violation or motor-vehicle offense) can be sentenced by one of 18 community reparative boards, made up of citizen volunteers. The board sets the contract, which usually requires that the offender make amends, repair damage, restore the victim, and determine how to avoid further offense. Fifteen percent of the normal probation flow is now being sent through the reparative track (460 people so far). No hard data on effectiveness is available, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it works. What does this mean? They have examples of people being "turned around" after reparation. For example, one man who was involved in a DWI offense, which paralyzed a man, was sentenced to care for the paraplegic for two weekends. Now he goes to AA regularly and on a voluntary basis still cares for the man. Other evidence suggests that the program may be reducing recidivism because of the supervision and attention paid to people who have committed "low level" offenses. Before now offenders who were not dangerous enough to incarcerate were put on probation and probably seen once every three months. Now the offender is under closer supervision by community members until reparation is complete. Mr. Perry said that the program may work because, unlike other corrections' programs, people are not labeled as "criminals." Instead, they are labeled as people who have erred, but who can be restored and the board ensures that the offenders know that they are welcome back into the community when they have paid the community back for their offense. Thus far, the reparative program and its "work camp" component have provided the state with $1 million in services (e.g., painting, shoveling snow off playgrounds, creating bus stops at senior citizen centers). So, in a sense offenders are "adding value" to the quality of life of the neighborhood. Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Program This summary is derived from a conversation with Steve Roy, Office Manager for the Neighborhood Dispute Settlement Program in two counties in Pennsylvania, 717-233-8255 and from an evaluation report available from NDS. The NDS program offers mediation meetings to individuals who are having disputes within a neighborhood and to people who have been referred by the police. The NDS handles the following types of disputes: landlord-tenant, youth-related, consumer-business, child custody, harassment, vandalism, disorderly conduct. A recent example of a dispute is the case of two people who had an argument in a parking lot and broke a car windshield. The police officer could have issued a citation to both, but instead referred them to NDS, which listened to their accounts and helped them to fashion a settlement (both agreed to pay half of the cost of repairing the car). Should mediation not work, the officer would have retained the right to issue the citation. The NDS does not handle felony charges, cases involving injury, or cases involving family members living in the same house. Mediation is done in local sites, usually a nearby church. Mediators are local residents who receive 24 hours of mediation training and then several practice sessions before handling a case. The proximity of the mediation site and the presence of a local resident as a mediator are believed by Mr. Roy to be key to the success of the program. The program is run on a budget of $43,000, with one full-time and one part-time employee. Evaluation studies of the program find:
Steve Roy will be happy to answer any further questions you have about this program, as will Detective John Galski of the Harrisburg Police (717-255-3018). Utah Community Service and Restitution Program This summary was prepared following a conversation with Michael Phillips, Deputy Juvenile Court Administrator, 801-578-3811, and after reading a number of reports he sent. The Utah Community Service and Restitution Program is geared toward juvenile offenders. It is designed to compensate victims and to hold the offender responsible for the act and for replacing or otherwise making restitution for the act. Juveniles are ordered to provide restitution for theft, shoplifting, property destruction, burglary, and car theft. In 1995 restitution ordered through this program totaled over $1 million dollars, most of which was collected. Most of the time restitution is paid to the Court and the Court pays the victim. Youth also completed over 400,000 hours of community service as part of this program in 1995 (about 80% of the number of hours ordered). The juveniles performed the following tasks: park beautification, road clean-up, library work, school janitorial services, and graffiti clean-up. Studies of the recidivism rate among youth referred to the restitution program rather than other "informal dispositions" (e.g., fines, voluntary probation, referrals to other agencies) show the effectiveness of this program, cutting recidivism from about 20% to about 11-12% on average. When coupled with a sentence of probation, the program was also effective. While 38% of those sentenced to probation alone recidivated within the year, only 32% of those ordered to pay restitution and be on probation recidivated. This program won the Gould-Wysinger Award from the U.S. Department of Justice. Other Community Restorative Justice Programs Thomas Quinn's paper, "Restorative Community Justice," reviews the rationale for restorative justice programs and summarizes evaluation studies of a variety of programs (paper available through the National Institute of Justice). His summary reviews the NDS and Midtown Community Court programs as well as
FINAL THOUGHTS
The National Institute of Justice has changed its focus in recent years and expects in the future to reinvigorate its emphasis on prevention and its integration of criminal justice and social service interventions to handle violent crime. There is a growing widespread recognition that criminal justice interventions alone are ineffective in dealing with the majority of criminal offenses, and that money spent for prevention is better than for corrections. A survey of prosecutors can also provide hints about areas where emphasis and innovative programs may be warranted. Prosecutors note that their problems with caseload stem largely from three types of crime. First is violent crime, with 92 percent of the prosecutors stating that child abuse and other domestic violence takes more of their time than any other type of case. These cases also frustrate the prosecutor because the victim often loses interest in prosecution and this results in a high number of dismissed cases. Drugs were cited as the second major workload problem. Most prosecutors believed that drug cases must be expedited by instituting drug treatment programs as alternatives. But most prosecutors believed substantial changes in these programs were necessary to ensure their effectiveness. Gangs were mentioned as the third most common problem for prosecutors trying to manage their caseloads. Some jurisdictions shuttle gang-related prosecutions to a special team, creating specialists and freeing time for the remaining prosecutors to handle other cases. Prosecutors support electronic monitoring as a sentencing alternative for low-risk offenders. Most of the reports available provide minimal information on the effects of the programs on neighborhood safety or on keeping offenders off the streets. Programs designed to process cases more quickly may just shift the problems to overcrowded prisons, which now release offenders after they have served only 50 percent of their sentence.
|