WE CAN DO BETTER – Part 17

WE CAN DO BETTER – Part 17

By Alan Miller, Candidate for Judge Superior Court II

 

Fairness in counseling programs

Counseling is an important part of the rehabilitation process. For far too long, the answer to our drug problem---locally and nationally---has been incarceration. As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. It is time to do things differently. These things said, rehabilitation and counseling must be done in accordance with and with respect paid to the Constitution.

A great deal of credit has been given to the Dearborn Superior Court No. 2’s Jail Chemical Addictions Program, more commonly known as JCAP. In its current form, the court’s JCAP program does not respect an individual’s Constitutional rights. This program gives an incarcerated individual the opportunity to participate in drug treatment and counseling while in jail and awaiting trial for their alleged crime. If the individual is successful in gaining access to the program, they are then rewarded with a 90-day stay in our county jail to complete the program, taking up space when he or she could very well have posted bond, returned to work, continued to support his or her family, or sought treatment elsewhere on their own dime. This program is completed prior to trial or conviction, while the individual is still presumed to be innocent. While in the program, the participants meet individually with the JCAP counselor, an employee of the court, and sometimes discuss the allegations against them. The potential for abuse of confidentiality---for that information to be shared with others in the system---is just far too great.

The fact of the matter is that this program forces an incarcerated individual to choose between their constitutional rights and other factors---fast and speedy trial, right against self-incrimination, decision to post bond among others---and counseling. When elected, I will explore options for continuing the JCAP program while ensuring that the rights of those involved are not being ignored.

While those who created and successfully completed the program have touted its effectiveness, there is no independent confirmation that the program actually works to keep people away from drugs. For every so-called success story, another former JCAP participant is back in before the judge, still struggling with their drug addiction. One of the tough questions that must be asked, that I will ask when I am elected is: is the program working? One would hope before dedicating programming space in an expanded jail, as is currently the plan, someone would have sought an answer to this question. However, and to the best of my knowledge, there have been no studies, nor are there any planned, to seek such an answer. Regardless of how the program is funded, we need to make sure that money is not being wasted. We need to come up with a definition of success, track the individuals before, during and after the program and see whether they are meeting that definition. Then, and only then, can we answer that question. Unless we are using the funds efficiently and doing the most good possible, not only are we failing those enrolled in the program, we are failing the community at large.

It is further my belief that counseling and residential treatment programs are the responsibility of the private sector. It is not the role of government, let alone a court, to provide such programs to its citizens. The possibility for abuse---in terms of oversight and reporting requirements, just to name a couple---is just too great. Despite this, the private sector has failed to step up to the plate and create a privately-owned and legitimate residential treatment program. As such, the public sector has had to step up and create solutions for the continuing drug problem.

Unless and until the private sector can formulate solutions to the local drug problem, I recognize that the courts must continue their role as treatment providers. However, if counseling remains in the public sector, it must be done in such a way so as to limit the impact upon defendants’ constitutional rights. It must not be done pre-trial when it is still unclear whether the defendant has even done anything illegal. It must be provided in a setting where the information obtained from the defendant cannot be used against him or her. To do otherwise compromises the integrity of our justice system.

 

This is the seventeenth part of my platform statement; a detailed proposal for how to improve our current justice system. It will be released over the next several months through facebook.com/makeitmiller2012 and makeitmiller2012.com. PLEASE feel free to forward this to your friends and family.
Thanks for your continued support!

Alan Miller