By Mosi Secret
Published in The New York Times on March 1, 2013
[The following is an article that was published in the New York Times on March 1, 2013 written by Mosi Secret. It describes a new program set up by Federal Judges and by Pretrial Services. In New York, the program is called “Pretrial Opportunity Program” or “POP.” Those eligible are defendants who are addicts. According to Pretrial Officer and Program Coordinator Laura Fahmy, the Court must believe that “…but for the addiction” the defendant would not have committed the crime he or she is charged with. Furthermore, that defendant must be deemed “bail worthy.” This means that if the defendant is not in the United States legally, it is difficult to be accepted into the program.] – Johanna S. Zapp, Esq.
Federal Judges around the country are teaming up with prosecutors to create special treatment programs for drug-addicted defendants who would otherwise face significant prison time, an effort intended to side-step drug laws widely seen as inflexible and overly punitive.
The Justice Department has tentatively embraced the new approach, allowing United States attorneys to reduce or even dismiss charges in some drug cases.
So far, federal judges have instituted programs in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. About 400 defendants have been involved nationwide.
In Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Thursday, Judge John Gleeson issued an opinion praising the new approach as a way to address swelling prison costs and disproportionate sentences for drug trafficking.
“Presentence programs like ours and those in other districts mean that a growing number of courts are no longer reflexively sentencing federal defendants who do not belong in prison to the costly prison terms recommended by the sentencing guidelines,” Judge Gleeson wrote.
The opinion came a year after Judge Gleeson, with the federal agency known as Pretrial Services, started a program that made achieving sobriety an incentive for drug-addicted defendants to avoid prison.
For nearly 30 years, the United States Sentencing Commission has established guidelines for sentencing, a role it was given in 1984 after studies found that federal judges were giving defendants widely varying sentences for similar crimes. The Commission’s recommendations were approved by Congress, causing judges to bristle at what they consider interference with their judicial independence.
“When you impose a sentence that you believe is unjust, it is a very difficult thing to do,” Stefan R. Underhill, a federal judge in Connecticut, said in an interview. “It feels wrong.”
The development of drug courts may meet resistance from some Republicans in Congress.
Under the model being used in state and federal courts, defendants must accept responsibility for their crimes and agree to receive drug treatment and other social services and attend regular meetings with judges who monitor their progress. In return for successful participation, they receive a reduced sentence or no jail time at all. If they fail, they are sent to prison.
The drug court option is not available to those facing more serious charges, like people accused of being high-level dealers or traffickers, or accused of a violent crime. (These programs differ from re-entry drug courts, which federal judges have long used to help offenders integrate into society after prison.)