A drug court and effective rehabilitation

Speaking during a “graduation ceremony” for 15 former drug users who were celebrating the successful end of their rehabilitation course, Caritas director Monsignor Victor Grech, who leads the Church’s arm that reaches out to drug addicts in Malta (in 2010 almost 650 were so treated), made a statement that is food for thought.

He said that “We do not think that punishment and prison are the best measures for improving the behaviour of these young people, except in cases where the person would be a huge risk to society such as drug trafficking and organised crime”.

He called for the setting up of a specific “drug court” and appealed for drug users not to be sent to prison. Under his proposal, a drug court would have at its disposal a multi-disciplinary team to examine carefully the degree of responsibility of someone suspected of a crime involving drugs and to provide for “intensive care according to that person’s needs”.

The thrust of his approach was, he said, to safeguard the welfare of individuals and for a balance to be struck between the rights of a suspect and of society. Those who undertook a long-term drug rehabilitation programme and reintegrated successfully into society should not be sent back to prison on criminal or civil charges, which had been pending for years, Mgr Grech suggested, adding that supervised community work would produce better results.

These words come hard on the heels of similar comments by the Sedqa clinical director, who called for the decriminalisation of certain drug use arguing that this would lead to better treatment of drug users without the need to send them to prison. Although Mgr Grech does not agree to the decriminalistion of certain drugs, the common point of departure for both Sedqa and Caritas was unequivocally that preventive education and rehabilitation offered better solutions to this problem in society than incarceration in prison.

There seems little argument that prison is not necessarily the answer to those who are addicted to drugs. Although some people will always believe that tough punishments deter drug addiction, it seems reasonable to argue on the evidence adduced by Caritas and on grounds of common sense that an addiction that is intrinsically an “illness” is not cured by a term of imprisonment.

A report produced by an internal board of inquiry some three years ago highlighted the drug culture that was rife in the Corradino Correctional Facility and the inadequacy of any proper rehabilitation programme. Far from curing drug abuse, being in prison seemed instead to foster it. Prisoners regressed rather than improved. The more enlightened and the more experienced, such as Caritas and Sedqa, argue that drug abusers can be weaned off their addiction through proper rehabilitation programmes and can be given the means to make an honest living in society. The programmes give them sufficient self-esteem to convince them of this.

A term of imprisonment is likely to lead to continued drug abuse. Few people who have worked with victims of drug abuse believe that, however unpleasant the conditions and however tough the regime, prison deters those who are addicted. A properly structured programme of drug rehabilitation, based as proposed on the drug court concept, could well offer an efficient and effective way of protecting not only the public but also the addict him/herself.

The contention by Caritas that “youths seeking treatment are not criminals but people who need care” should be heard and actively followed up.