Stories of Change: Narrative and Social Movements

7. Drug Court Stories: Transforming American Jurisprudence

SEVEN Drug Court Stories Transforming American Jurisprudence JAMES L. NOLAN JR. Recent social movement scholarship has usefully shifted attention to the important cultural variables that drive and give meaning to social movements—a focus that was given limited attention for many years. In this chapter, I analyze an important movement within the American criminal justice system that gives empirical support to the legitimacy of this new focus. While the drug court movement might invite a prima facie analysis based on the conventional structural categories, a comprehensive investigation of the movement makes evident the limitations of such a focus. Drawing on ethnographic observation of twenty-one drug courts throughout the United States, attendance at three national drug court conferences , participation in two mentoring court training sessions, interviews with twenty-four drug court judges and dozens of other drug court officials , observation—over a several-month period—of the planning of a local drug court, and additional supporting data from more than forty drug courts around the country,1 I show in this chapter how the rapid expansion of and widespread enthusiasm with the drug court phenomenon only makes sense when certain cultural forces are considered in the larger equation. And central to the impact of these cultural forces is the defining and energizing influence of narrative discourse. 149 THE DRUG COURT MOVEMENT Before considering the significance of the different structural and cultural factors driving this social movement, I first provide a brief overview of the defining features of the drug court. The first drug court was established in Dade County, Florida in 1989. Janet Reno, the state’s attorney for Dade County at the time, was among those who spearheaded the effort. Since then, more than six hundred similar courts have been started or are in the planning stages. The rapid expansion of the drug court model has led participants and observers alike to label the phenomenon a “movement,” even a “revolution” in criminal justice—the proposed causes for which we will consider in the next section. The drug court offers drug offenders the option of court-monitored treatment as an alternative to the normal adjudication process. Defendants participate in various treatment modalities including acupuncture, individual and group counseling sessions, and self-help groups like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Offenders also submit to periodic urinalysis testing and regularly (every one to four weeks) report back to the judge, who checks on their treatment progress. The program is usually expected to last one year, but often lasts much longer. Most drug courts offer defendants, as an incentive for participating in the drug court, the dismissal of their criminal charge or the expungement of their drug arrest on successful completion of the program . Other courts actually mandate drug court, often as a condition of probation. The drug court fundamentally alters the traditional adjudication process. For example, the relationship between the judge and the defendant (or “client,” as they are often referred to in the drug court) is radically different from a normal criminal court. The judge engages the client directly, asks personal questions, and encourages the client in the treatment process. Judges operate more like proactive therapists than dispassionate judicial officers in the way they interact with clients. The attorney’s role is also substantially altered in the drug court. Not only is the relationship between public defender and prosecutor no longer adversarial, but lawyers generally play a less prominent role. As one drug court judge explains, “lawyers literally and figuratively take a step back” (Tauber 1993: 8). In many drug courts the lawyers do not even show up for the regular drug court sessions, and when they do, it is often difficult to determine just who the attorneys are in the courtroom drama. At a mentoring court training session in 150 NOLAN Rochester, New York, for example, one first-time observer of the drug court suggested that the district attorney reminded him of a “potted plant” because of the limited role he performed. The drug court has received considerable support at both the grassroots and national levels. The Department of Justice opened a Drug Courts Program Office in 1995, through which planning, implementation, and enhancement grants for existing or emerging drug courts have since been awarded. Funding for these grants has increased steadily since the Office was established. In fiscal year 1995, the office granted $12 million to drug courts. This increased to $15 million in 1996...