Vol. 12 (August 2001) pp. 409-411.

REINVENTING JUSTICE: THE AMERICAN DRUG COURT MOVEMENT by James L. Nolan, Jr. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001. 254 pp. Cloth $29.95. ISBN: 0-691-07452-6.

Reviewed by Ruth Ann Strickland, Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice, Appalachian State University.

Drug courts emerged because of increasingly overcrowded criminal court dockets. James Nolan provides an overview of the drug court movement, its history, its effects on the courtroom workgroup and the administration of justice and criminal adjudication. The book focuses on understanding the drug court movement and the consequences of it for conceptions of justice. The book reviews the legal efforts to control drug use such as the Harrison Act and the precursor to drug courts known as Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC).

Between August 1994 and August 1998, Nolan visited and observed twenty-one different drug courts in eleven different states and the District of Columbia. Nolan focused his study on drug treatment courts rather than expedited drug case management courts. Drug treatment courts focus on addressing the drug addiction problem of the accused, whereas expedited drug case management courts focus primarily on relieving court congestion. The location of the drug treatment courts included in his study varied by region: seven in the Northeast, six in the West, five in the Mid Atlantic, and three in the South. Some courts were in large urban areas while others were in rural sections of the United States. Eleven courts had existed for longer than one year; eight existed for less than a year and two were in the planning stages. He interviewed judges in each drug court face-to-face and held informal discussions with numerous drug court officials such as district attorneys, public defenders, treatment counselors, private attorneys, program coordinators and drug court clients. Nolan also attended national drug court conferences and conducted more interviews with drug court officials. He even participated in the planning of a local drug court during a four month period.

The first drug court in the United States was established in Dade County, Florida in 1989. Spearheaded by Janet Reno, then Florida's State Attorney, it allowed drug offenders to choose court-monitored treatment as an alternative to the typical criminal adjudication process. In drug treatment courts, offender treatment is centered on the court rather than a treatment facility. Defendants, then, engage in court-monitored activities such as participation in groups counseling sessions, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. They are subject to urinalysis testing and regularly report to a judge who monitors their treatment and progress. Programs last at least one year but may last longer. Successful completion of the program may result in dismissal of criminal charges or the expungement of the arrest from the defendant's record. In drug courts, attorneys play a less prominent role while the judge becomes more active by asking clients personal questions and giving encouragement during the treatment process. Although based on the Dade County model, each drug court has unique adaptations such as standards used to determine eligibility for potential participants, guidelines used to determine when clients first gain access to a treatment program and the types of agencies involved in the treatment of drug court clients.

Drug courts emerged in response to a variety of cultural and structural developments. Structural causes of the increased reliance on drug courts include overcrowded jails and prisons, high recidivism rates among drug offenders, backlogged criminal court dockets and weighing the costs of incarceration against the cheaper alternative of court-monitored treatment. Culturally, the rise of a therapeutic culture, with a focus on self-understanding and the language of victimhood, provided the underpinnings of the drug court movement. Therapeutic justice, along with therapeutic judges, treats drug offenders as victims of a biopsychosocial disease-drug abuse. Nolan pointedly negates the idea that being therapeutic is synonymous with being soft on crime. He argues that punishment and treatment are not necessarily contradictory and can even be complementary.

In Chapter 3, Nolan discusses the effects of drug treatment courts on the courtroom workgroup. Comparing drug courts to a therapeutic theater, Nolan discusses the problems associated with orchestrating, planning, developing and evaluating drug courts. Given the redefinition of the roles of defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys, total acceptance of drug treatment courts is hard to obtain. Shifts in thinking and development of a team approach are difficult to inculcate in a normally adversarial environment. Prosecutors yield a great deal of their authority to judges. Defense attorneys also must adjust to taking a back seat to treatment counselors. In the drug treatment court, the main drama unfolds between the client (or defendant) and the judge.

Unlike the other traditional dominant actors, many judges find drug courts personally fulfilling, reinvigorating and liberating. In fact, the establishment of most drug courts is due to the administrative and political entrepreneurial activities of judges. Drug treatment judges are referred to as "un-common law" judges because of their departure from the typical role as neutral fact finders. By nature, drug court judges are activists. They interact with the community, lobby on behalf of the drug court program, cultivate media relationships, seek support for other criminal justice agencies, and so on. Rather than remaining distant and impartial toward defendants, drug court judges cultivate an interest in their clients. Drug court judges are freer to depart from traditional rehabilitative methods and often experiment with new approaches in dealing with the drug problem. Most judges who participate in drug treatment courts are enthusiastic because they believe they are making a difference.

In Chapter 5, Nolan examines the importance of drug court storytelling. The stories include horror stories (which express disgust with the "old way" of dealing with drug offenders), war stories (which recount victories or obstacles to drug treatment and seek to rally the faithful), and happy endings (which expand on the successes of individual clients). Many evaluations of drug treatment courts include the drug court clients' perspectives on drug court operations. Thus, client narratives have also influenced the evaluation of drug courts.

Viewing drug addiction as an illness is a difficult shift for some judges to make. Judges often see raising the self-esteem of their clients as a central part of their role in a drug treatment court. Guilt is viewed as irrelevant in some drug treatment courts. So, defendants may admit guilt but are not required to enter guilty pleas as such admissions may come at the expense of their self esteem. Because drug courts want to recognize drug use as a disease, responsibility rather than guilt is stressed. Some drug court judges now support the expansion of drug court to violent crimes.

In the last two chapters, Nolan explores the meaning of justice. He describes the retributivist and utilitarian perspectives and contrasts these approaches with the rehabilitative and therapeutic ideals. Paradoxically, as the rehabilitative ideal has been discredited, a therapeutic culture has emerged. Some refer to this as the "new psychologism"-a movement toward seeking self-realization and stressing personal satisfaction over individual interests or social goals. Drug court treatment fits well with the new psychologism where emphasis is placed on "feelings" and getting in touch with oneself. Nolan concludes that once justice is characterized as "just treatment," criticisms based on just desert become meaningless. In this context, justice is reinvented and therapeutic justice becomes the dominant paradigm.

****************************************************************