Seven years ago I was in county
jail anxiously awaiting the outcome of my criminal case. There was no thought of taking my case to
trial. I had committed three counts of
robbery in a 24-hour crack cocaine binge. I was already on probation for
another robbery I had committed 18 months prior. I accepted a plea agreement of
15 years with parole eligibility after serving one-quarter of my sentence. When
I tell fellow addicts about the crimes I committed in that desperate state,
they invariable say, “Yep. I get it.”
Cocaine and other stimulants are
not only extremely addictive, they alter the brain.[i]
Actual lesions are observed in the brains of cocaine abusers, meaning that drug
use literally causes brain damage. The damage impairs decision making even
during periods of abstinence, making it extraordinarily difficult to remain drug
free long enough for the brain to heal.
I relapsed frequently. I was also under psychiatric care for
depression and anxiety at the same time, which would suggest the need for
longer-term residential treatment and extended aftercare in a supportive
environment.[ii] Instead, I was placed in a punitive halfway
house in a neighborhood with high levels of drug activity. Every day presented
an agonizing struggle to ignore the oppressive urge to find more crack. The
obsessions to use were so powerful that I’d enter into periodic fugue states,
unconsciously moving through the day as memories and fantasies of crack cocaine
seized my present awareness.
When I finally relapsed, my only thought was to find more crack. In that state, I would have done anything to score another hit. I committed robbery to get more drugs. This is what a drug crime looks like.
There is no research that supports the notion that long-term incarceration is a form of rehabilitation.
Researchers have studied drug
addiction treatment so extensively, that they can affirmatively state: Treatment Works. The National
Institute of Drug Abuse even established principles of effective treatment.[iii]
Therefore, when one talks of rehabilitation for someone convicted of a
drug-related offense, the proper response is treatment, not more time in
prison.
Unfortunately, judges and
prosecutors have little confidence in treatment. In many counties in Texas, the vast majority
of felony convictions result in prison or state jail sentences, not community
supervision. While Texas has a long way
to go in terms of making evidence-based treatment more widely available, people
on community supervision at least have greater access to treatment than those
in prison.
In prison, pre-release treatment can
only be accessed through a favorable vote of the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles. You read that correctly: one can only get treatment in prison after
serving the minimum sentence imposed by the court, and only then by a vote of
non-clinicians. Sadly, the Parole Board continues to view parole denial as a tool
for rehabilitation. In Texas, nearly 85% of those eligible for parole will be
released within five years of initial parole eligibility; however, the Board
only approves about 35% of those eligible every year.
This means that the Parole Board
spends $835 million each year to keep about 44,000 people in prison beyond
their minimum sentence, most of whom would have benefited from treatment. In
true Texas fashion, many of those people are denied parole because of a history
of drug use. Again, you read that correctly:
In Texas, the Parole Board can deny someone treatment because the individual has a history of drug abuse.
Just as I had to understand my
problem before I could truly grasp recovery, Texas has to understand that
addiction is at root of a significant proportion of crimes committed in the state.
Knowing that incarceration will not address the problem, we must invest our
limited resources in what does work. Treatment, housing, and aftercare are
effective strategies.
Treatment does not preclude a consequence for serious crimes, but thinking of incarceration as a form of rehabilitation is the very definition of insanity.
Citations
[i]
Fuchs, Rita A., et al, “Differential Involvement of Orbitofrontal Cortex
Subregions in Conditioned Cue-Induced and Cocaine-Primed Reinstatement of
Cocaine Seeking in Rats,” The Journal of Neuroscience, July, 21, 2004, http://www.jneurosci.org/content/24/29/6600.full.pdf.
[ii]
National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, “Treating cocaine/crack
dependence,”
[iii]
National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based
Guide (Third Edition,” http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/principles-effective-treatment.
My head is almost spinning as I try to digest what you said at the end of this post: A history of drug abuse disqualifies incarcerated people from receiving treatment for drug abuse. You are absolutely right, that is just insane. I work in the medical field and I know that addiction needs to be treated as the medical condition it is, ie, a disease, not by locking people up without addressing the underlying reason they are in jail in the first place. Sadly, many people are totally unsympathetic when it comes to drug addiction. They are fine with literally throwing addicts away like a bag of trash, rather than trying to rehabilitate them. And I'm sure a good percentage of those unsympathetic people are addicted to nicotine, caffeine or alcohol, but would be aghast if it were suggested that they aren't that much different than the crack or heroin addict. The major difference, of course, being that their substance of choice is legal, and hence readily available with no need to break the law to obtain it. The so called 'war on drugs' is absolutely unwinnable without treatment and rehabilitation. Sadly, it's become an industry unto itself with for profit prisons, police departments enriched by asset forfeiture, the need for more cops, guards, DEA agents, etc., who all lobby for it's continuation and expansion. Until the citizens who control the purse strings demand change loudly and forcefully, nothing will change and the status quo will prevail.
ReplyDelete