COURTS DOING THEIR PART IN FIGHTING DRUG TRADE

There was a time when persons who were convicted of crimes went to prison and paid their "debt to society." That was what most Americans accepted ... it was a civilized thing to believe. This way of thinking hasn't aged well. Americans remain frustrated today that criminals are only paying part of their debt for crimes committed, in addition to not learning a lesson from their incarceration. Is the criminal justice system working, particularly where it applies to drug offenses? Yes, for the most part. However, it is failing in some areas and saddled by bad procedures in others.

Most troubling in the system of courts and corrections is the reality that punishment is never what it appears. Public perception has it that an offender who is caught and convicted heads directly to a due confinement. In fact, many who are caught selling cocaine as a first-time offense will serve only 15-25 percent of the sentence handed them. Why is that? Prison space is at a premium and resources of the Department of Corrections are stretched thin; only "high priority" criminals remain behind bars for a long period.

In this fashion, state circuit court judges operate at a disadvantage. Their actions are intended to deter offenders from repeating their criminal acts, but short jail stays represent little more than "the cost of doing business" to some cocaine dealers. Federal judges, who often get the major dealers in their courtroom, have an easier time getting attention. Sentences for drug dealers convicted in federal court aren't subject to parole and few of them result in probation. Strict sentencing guidelines apply, with the type of drug sold and the amount taken in account. (Distribution of five kilos of cocaine will get even a first-time offender 10 years in federal prison, with no early release.)

If the lawbreaker is pleased to get one system (state) over another (federal), it may be time to standardize the rules. State court guidelines should be toughened to an extent that offenders don't feel they're getting a break when arrested outside the federal system.

More than anyone, circuit judges feel the frustration of a system that sees too many repeat offenders, and too many offenders who graduate from the juvenile court system. And while they sense the disenchantment of the public in seeing society's drug problems persist, they must also bear the weight of determining the course of individual lives. Will imprisonment have a positive or negative impact on a person, who might learn from the experience or merely hone a criminal attitude? We elect judges to exercise such judgment, and their duty is a tough one.

One tool at their disposal now is a 120-day shock detention program in which judges can retain jurisdiction (as opposed to turning it over to the Department Corrections) while seeing if offenders can straighten themselves out (and, in many cases, dry themselves out). In some cases this works and the prison system is spared another hardened case to house. This is good news: Prisons, though they will never be obsolete, are not good public investments. They are costly and mostly ineffective in rehabilitating their residents. In solving the nation's drug problems, the key strategies are education, treatment and enforcement, the first two of which represent wiser expenditures of tax dollars. The treatment aspect also can pay off in terms of salvaged human resources.

Some inroads are being made in the fight against illegal drugs in this nation, and the judicial system is doing its part, despite the frustration of recidivism. Ultimately, the chore of defeating this problem rests not with any institution but with society, which can educate itself better on the dangers of drugs or vote to pay more money for the construction of prisons to house those who to the frustration of law-abiding citizens just don't get the message.