For generations, the American justice system has wrestled with a difficult question: How should courts respond when criminal behavior is driven by substance use disorder? Traditional models of prosecution and incarceration have long emphasized punishment as the primary mechanism for accountability. Yet decades of experience have demonstrated that punishment alone often fails to address the underlying conditions that contribute to addiction and repeated involvement with the criminal justice system.
Drug Courts emerged as a response to this challenge. These specialized courts were founded on a simple but transformative premise: meaningful accountability and meaningful recovery are not opposing concepts. Rather, they are complementary objectives that, when pursued together, can produce better outcomes for individuals, families, and communities.
In the early 2000’s I began realizing that on every docket I presided over in all four (4) counties, at least one criminal defendant would not appear for his or her case because that person was deceased from a drug overdose. In January 2009, I became Chief Circuit Judge for the four counties in the twenty-first (21st) Judicial Circuit, and in January 2009, I started the Montgomery County Drug Court with the hope of curtailing the death rate of drug overdoses in Eastern Kentucky. At that time, the drug problem in Eastern Kentucky had grown out of control and I desperately wanted to be a part of the solution. Because I presided over civil, criminal and domestic cases in four (4) eastern Kentucky counties, finding time to add yet another important task would be difficult. While I believed the creation of a drug court in Montgomery County was important, and I was willing to take on this additional task with no additional pay, modifications, and assistance from drug court staff was necessary to accomplish a smooth drug court process when I could not be present because she I presiding over court in one of my three other counties .
I saw great potential in my drug court participants once they were clean and sober. I was very proud of the number of drug free babies born to participants, the amounts that the participants paid in child support and restitution, the effort that the participants expended to get their children back from custody of the Cabinet for Families and Children, and the joy that the participants gained from living a normal life and being with their families. Most importantly, by being clean and raising children in a clean environment, these drug court participants were breaking the cycle of addiction. Having witnessed firsthand the impact of Drug Court programs, I have come to believe that their greatest lesson extends far beyond the courtroom. Drug Courts remind us that justice is most effective when it recognizes both personal responsibility and human potential.
Understanding the Relationship Between Addiction and Criminal Conduct
Substance use disorder is a complex condition that affects decision making, behavior, relationships, and overall functioning. While addiction does not excuse criminal conduct, it often serves as a significant contributing factor in offenses involving theft, fraud, drug possession, probation violations, and other criminal acts.
Historically, courts were often limited to a binary choice. Individuals were either incarcerated or released with little meaningful intervention. In many cases, neither option adequately addressed the root causes of the behavior that brought a person before the court.
As a result, many individuals cycled repeatedly through the criminal justice system. Arrest followed release. Release followed relapse. Relapse frequently led to another arrest. Communities bore the financial and social costs of this revolving door while families struggled to cope with the consequences.
In approximately 2008, following a death in one of the jails in my four counties, I began talking to jail staff and law enforcement and learned that when someone believes they are about to be arrested for possession of controlled substances, they swallow every drug they have in their possession to prevent from being charged with Possession of Controlled Substances, often a felony for one narcotic pill; the result is an overdose and possible death.
In an attempt to prevent any other deaths in any jail in her four county circuit, I entered a standard drug testing order that tested every person booked into the jail. The order specifically stated that the test could not be used for any purpose but for protecting the individual, jail staff and other inmates, and could not be used as evidence in any proceedings against that person.The tests were ordered from Redwood, California and cost $3.00 per test. A twenty ($20.00) dollar fee was added to that defendant’s booking fee to cover the cost of tests for indigent individuals. The test provided valuable information to jail staff and individuals who tested positive for substances other than marijuana were placed in an observation cell. Per-trial services was also provided a copy of the drug test results, and the judge handling that person’s case could inquire about the test results. If the person tested positive for highly addictive substances, I set the bond high with the intention of keeping that person in custody until he or she could come off the substance or substances they were on. I would ask pre-trial services to review that individual with her in several days, and see how they were doing. If the person was going through withdrawals, the jail would administer phenobarbital to help with the withdrawals and phenergan for nausea. When the individual appeared to be sober and clean, which often took roughly thirty (30) days, that person was either released to intensive outpatient treatment or if a plea was reached, released directly to drug court staff to begin their journey with accountability immediately. Aside from wanting to save individuals from drug overdoses, if that individual committed another crime while out on bond, under Kentucky law, that person was not then eligible for diversion which meant that the charge would not go off that person’s record, and that person was not eligible for probation at sentencing. While the methods I utilized in keeping those addicted in custody until they were clean may seem extreme, I believed it was unreasonable to have a person who was extremely addicted to substances to be placed on a bond condition that the person not use or consume drugs or commit any new offenses, because I knew that the minute they were released they violate the terms of their bond by using drugs, and would most likely engage in another crime by engaging in a trafficking transaction, or stealing from family to get money to purchase the drugs they were about to consume. I could not release a person knowing that they would immediately commit another crime.
Jail interrupts the cycle, and I used Drug Courts to continue that interruption.
Rather than focusing exclusively on punishment, these programs recognize that long-term public safety is best served when individuals receive the tools necessary to achieve lasting recovery and productive citizenship.
Accountability Requires More Than Punishment
One of the most persistent misconceptions surrounding Drug Courts is the belief that they represent a softer approach to justice. In reality, Drug Court participants are often held to standards that exceed those imposed through traditional criminal proceedings.
Participants must appear regularly before the court, undergo frequent drug and alcohol testing, including testing without notice, attend treatment programs and numerous NA/AA meetings each week, maintain employment or educational commitments, comply with supervision requirements including paying court costs, restitution and child support, and demonstrating measurable progress over time. Many don’t realize that the alcohol testing performed could test whether the person has had a single beer within days. Failure to meet these obligations can result in sanctions that are swift and meaningful, and include additional NA/AA meetings, or immediate jail time which could cause that person to lose a job, which in turn could cause that person to lose their apartment or car. The decision to incarcerate a drug court participant who has attained a job and apartment is excruciating, but after added meetings and non-in custody punishments are not successful in curtailing relapse, there often is no option. The participant can be terminated from drug court with continued use and infractions which can result in revocation of the person’s diversion or probation and reinstatement of that person’s sentence of incarceration. No person who is serving a probated is held to the high standards of those in drug court.
The structure of drug court reflects an important principle. Accountability is not merely about imposing consequences; it is about requiring individuals to confront their actions, accept responsibility, and engage in the difficult work of change.
Recovery demands discipline. It requires honesty, perseverance, and a willingness to address painful realities. Drug Courts create an environment in which those expectations are clearly established and consistently enforced.
The process is neither easy nor automatic.
Recovery Strengthens Communities
The benefits of Drug Court programs extend well beyond the individual participant.
When a person achieves recovery, the positive effects often ripple outward through families, workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods. Children gain more stable parents and are supported by that parent who was formerly addicted and spending all available resources on substances. Employers retain reliable workers. Communities experience lower rates of recidivism and reduced demands on public resources.
Research consistently demonstrates that treatment-focused interventions can reduce repeat offending and generate significant cost savings when compared to repeated incarceration. More importantly, these very stringent and difficult programs help restore individuals to productive roles within society.
The value of recovery should not be measured solely by statistics. It should also be measured by human outcomes. I want to tell a story about an individual of whom I am extremely proud. I first saw this addicted female when she was eighteen years old, addicted to meth and had no teeth. I left her in custody for at least thirty to forty-five days to ensure she was clean. She was released directly to drug court. She flourished in drug court, obtained a well paying job at a factory and may not have ever had a single relapse during her time in drug court. When it was time for graduation, I noticed that she did not have her GED, a requirement which I had imposed as a condition of graduation. This participant told me she did not intend to attend college and she had an excellent job so there was no need for her to obtain her GED. I then extended her probation and required her to obtain her GED. At that point, this participant thought I was the devil reincarnated. Six months later this participant obtained her GED and graduated from Drug Court. Approximately six (6) years later, I received a call from this person. She had graduated from college, had a teaching degree, and had obtained her first teaching job at a high school. There are no words for the pride and respect I have for her.
Every individual who overcomes addiction represents a life redirected toward greater stability, purpose, and contribution. Every family that avoids the devastation of continued substance abuse represents a meaningful victory for the broader community.
Drug Courts help make those outcomes possible.
The Importance of Judicial Leadership
The effectiveness of Drug Courts depends upon a collaborative model that brings together judges, attorneys, treatment providers, probation officers, law enforcement professionals, and community partners. The success of the Montgomery County Drug Court was a result of my passion, as well as the passion of my community members who served on the drug court committee. Their input into potential job availabilities, housing options and knowledge of individuals our participants were associating with was a valuable commodity.
Within this framework, the role of the judge differs significantly from traditional judicial proceedings. Judges maintain impartiality and uphold the rule of law while also engaging more directly with participants throughout their recovery journey. On one hand, I was a cheerleader cheering the participants on when they would come in front of me, and giving them high praise for their accomplishments, like a parent would do, and on the other hand, I was the enforcer and had to be the sad courier of news when that person was remanded to jail for relapse, or worse, terminated and remanded to custody for continued use or a new offense.
This ongoing interaction allows the court to monitor progress, reinforce positive behavior, and respond appropriately to setbacks. It also reinforces a fundamental truth about recovery: meaningful change rarely occurs in a straight line. I always told drug court participants who were impatient to get finished with the requirements of drug court that they didn’t get this state overnight, and they would not be better overnight. Recovery takes time, and it is a lifelong endeavor.
Many participants encounter obstacles before achieving sustained success. Drug Courts recognize that setbacks can serve as opportunities for learning and growth when addressed with consistency, structure, and appropriate consequences. When I first began as a drug court judge, there was a policy in place that would only allow a person to attend drug court on one effort. If the person graduated or was not successful, that person could never attend drug court again. As time passed, I saw the need to readmit former graduates who had relapsed, and to give another chance to individuals who were too immature to realize the opportunity they had been given the first time around. Success must be earned through sustained effort and personal commitment. I always told community leaders that drug court was a very difficult task, and an individual who completed drug court was someone who would work hard and achieve goals. I achieved getting the one and done in drug court police changed. Now, if a judge believes a person can benefit from going through drug court again, or receiving a second chance, it is possible in Kentucky.
Judicial leadership in this context requires both firmness and perspective. The objective is not to eliminate accountability. The objective is to ensure that accountability serves a constructive purpose.
A More Complete Vision of Justice
The most enduring lesson of Drug Courts is that justice can be both principled and compassionate.
A legal system committed solely to punishment risks overlooking the factors that contribute to recurring criminal behavior. Conversely, a system that disregards accountability fails to uphold the rule of law and public trust. Effective justice requires both elements.
One of the most important tools a judge has is a pre-sentence investigative report (PSI), from Probation and Parole. I stayed awake late at night reading every word of each and every PSI I received. Each PSI was approximately fifteen (15) or more pages depending on their criminal history, number of family members discussed and quantity of information provided to Probation and Parole. I would have approximately twenty (20) or more to read and take notes on for my Rowan and Montgomery criminal dockets. These PSIs were extremely valuable to understand why this person turned to drugs, and whether there was a chance of saving that person and assisting them in becoming a productive citizen. When I would read a PSI, it was important to learn whether a person grew up in an intact family unit, whether the person was physically or sexually abused as a child or teen, at what age their parents divorced, if they did, whether that person was moved around as a child, at what age that person used their first substance, at what age that person committed their first offense, the nature of each and every offense that person ever committed, and in what county and a description of each and every tattoo that person has. I caution judges who believe it is not important to read every PSI in its entirety. I did not read novels at night, I read PSIs, because in a novel you cannot change the outcome, but by reading a PSI you can have a look into what possibly caused this person to go south, and as a judge, you have an opportunity to change the ending. Drug Courts demonstrate that individuals can be held responsible for their actions while also being provided an opportunity to rebuild their lives. They affirm the belief that past mistakes need not define a person’s future and that communities are strengthened when pathways to recovery are available.
At their best, Drug Courts embody a vision of justice that recognizes human dignity without sacrificing responsibility. They remind us that the ultimate purpose of the legal system is not simply to punish wrongdoing, but to promote safer communities, stronger families, and better outcomes for society as a whole.
In an era when many institutions face growing public scrutiny, the principles underlying Drug Courts remain especially relevant. Accountability matters. Recovery matters. Second chances matter. When these values work together, they create opportunities for transformation that benefit not only individuals, but entire communities.