Drug addiction and substance abuse are the root cause for a majority of crimes committed in Arizona, says Barbara LaWall, Pima County attorney.

“If we can treat that addict and break the cycle, we can reduce the prison population and save ourselves a lot of money,” Ms. LaWall told the House Alternatives to Sentencing Work Group on Sept. 10.

However, finding addicts who are repeat offenders and willing to enter rehabilitation programs is a challenge.

Ms. LaWall told work group members that she knows of only one successful program in the United States that deals with repeat offenders, but that 68 per cent of the potential participants reject it.

“They feel it is too difficult,” she said. “They know they have to give up their drugs. They feel it is much easier to do their time.”

Ms. LaWall, who has been a prosecutor since 1976, spent the first portion of her presentation trying to dispel what she calls a myth that too many people are sent to prison for too long a time at too great an expense.

“A majority of all violent offenders – robbers, murderers, persons charged with sexual assault – have prior histories,” she said. “Incarceration has resulted in a drop in the crime rates.”

To back up her point, she provided statistics on indictments in Pima County for 2002. She said 50 per cent of the individuals who were indicted for a crime had previous indictments, 9.5 per cent were on probation or parole and 25.5 per cent were on a pre-trial release pending resolution of another offense.

“I have no reason to believe statistics would not be identical in Maricopa County,” said Ms. LaWall.

An intense study of 3,474 persons booked into Pima County Jail during a two-week period in 2000 provided an insight into the drug and substance abuse problem.

Slightly more than 87 per cent agreed to be interviewed for the study, and 94.6 per cent agreed to provide urine for testing.

Nearly 70 per cent of those who agreed tested positive for drugs, she said, with 40.8 per cent testing positive for cocaine, 45 per cent testing positive for marijuana and 28.7 testing positive for more than one drug.

“People are using drugs at an increasingly high rate,” she said. “These statistics do not include the alcohol problem.”

During interviews, 70.3 per cent admitted to what was considered heavy use of alcohol, 55.4 per cent admitted to using marijuana and 35.9 per cent admitted to using powdered cocaine.

Ms. LaWall said the use of methamphetamines is now on the rise.

A Disturbing Trend

She reported another disturbing trend.

“I am now prosecuting the grandchildren of people I prosecuted when I first started,” she said.

That statement startled a number of the work group members, and they asked how that trend might be reversed.

“We can divert people from prison and give them an opportunity to change their lifestyle,” she said and then began telling about the Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program started in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1990, by the local district attorney, Charles Joe Hynes.

The program targets drug addicted, non-violent felony offenders with a history of arrests and incarceration who are facing a charge with a mandatory sentence.

To enter the program, the offender must plead guilty and agree to a 15 to 24 month residential drug treatment program. While in drug treatment, the offender also agrees to participate in a job-training program.

The offender’s sentence is deferred during the treatment and is set aside if the offender successfully completes the treatment. If the offender drops out or fails the treatment, he or she goes to prison to serve the sentence.

Since 1990, Ms. LaWall said 5,086 have been screened for the program, and 3,447 – 68 per cent – have refused to participate.

Of the 1,639 who agreed to participate in the program, 52.6 per cent graduated.

Ms. LaWall acknowledged the success rate might not seem high, but she added, “If we do 1,000 offenders every year we would make a tremendous impact.”

She also acknowledged that the start-up costs for such a program would be high.

“You have to have a residential treatment program,” she said. “We can’t fool around with a population like this.”

However, she noted that the cost of a 17-month program “is probably half what it costs to house a person in prison.” —