The following student report was submitted by Ambassador League Agent Luke W. during the 2009-2010 League.
Mission: Observe a Local Judicial Trial
On February 18, 2010, I attended a drug and sobriety court at Lansing City Hall. The mission of the 54-A Sobriety Court is to enhance public safety and community welfare by reducing recidivism among drug and alcohol offenders. The presiding judge was Louise Alderson, who graduated from Cooley Law School and worked as legal counsel in the Michigan House.
Drug and sobriety court purports many distinguishing characteristics from other courts. I saw some of those differences first hand. A drug court handles the cases of many people in just one hour because all the heavy lifting has been done by the time Judge Alderson walks in the room.
Before the court goes into session, a meeting takes place and members of an interdisciplinary team discuss the progress of the people who are due to go in front of the judge. Sobriety court is not like a typical trial. Drug court is better described as a two year sobriety program. The ‘trial’ is a time where the progress of that program is ‘judged.’ The team includes the judge, a defense attorney, and mental health experts. They all work together to help participants get clean and stay that way.
Punishment is not the goal of the court. Everyone in the program has already been convicted of some felony level count that involves substance abuse. The program is "a second chance." Instead of doing hard time, the participants get clean.
Although punishment is not the goal, the program is tough. There is frequent drug testing, counseling, and participants are responsible for paying fees associated with this process. These attributes help motivate them to work hard. One of the psychologists said that even with gas money and a car it would be difficult to complete the program. Those are luxuries that many do not have.
It is interesting to note the intimacy between the court and the people. In the meeting before the trial it was mentioned that one of the participants actually called the psychologist and asked him for a ride to the next group counseling session. In the courtroom, prizes were handed out for the completion of certain stages in the recovery. Everyone is close —from the judge to the psychologist to the people recovering their sobriety.
The program boasts relative success. Sixty-one people have entered the program and 30 have graduated. The expenses involved are radically lower than incarceration. The cost per person in the program is around $2,100, compared to the cost per prisoner in Michigan which is almost $40,000 a year.
Beyond the fiscal advantages, it seems that drug court addresses the core problems facing people. If the program’s participants were sent to jail or prison instead of drug court, do we really think they would not re-offend after their sentence was served? The people in the drug court were non-violent offenders. They were fortunate this time, as driving while intoxicated often causes death. This innovative recovery process may save lives.
The court was very different from my expectations. The gavel lifted the defendants up instead of pushing them down. While the process should be difficult because what they did was wrong, making sobriety the "end game" gives the drug court a good niche.
