NH court gives addicts second chances - NashuaTelegraph.com

NH court gives addicts second chances - NashuaTelegraph.com

Sunday, December 5, 2010
NH court gives addicts second chances
By LYNNE TUOHY
The Associated Press
PrintShare Comment

CONCORD – On the afternoon when Noah Grassie’s leg irons were removed in a federal courtroom, he was a convicted drug dealer and addict, a high school dropout who had never had a job or a driver’s license.
But U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante saw potential in the 20-year-old, and federal prosecutors signed off on Grassie’s participation in an intensive rehabilitation program that is one of only a handful of such programs in the federal court system.
Laplante dubbed it LASER docket – Law Abiding, Sober, Employed and Rehabilitated.
“Your days of hanging around the streets with your high school buddies are over, Mr. Grassie,” Laplante told him. “We’ve got to get you straightened out.”
Grassie joined two others in the program: a 19-year-old “mule” in the same Seacoast drug ring as Grassie and a 35-year-old mother and methedrine addict.
“This program is completely unique in the United States and you are the first three defendants to go through it,” Laplante told them.
Unlike other federal re-entry programs that offer intensive treatment after a convict has completed a prison sentence, LASER uses the prospect of a reduced sentence and chance to turn a life around prior to sentencing. But a guilty plea is a prerequisite to participation in the program.
It takes 12 to 18 months to complete the program, with weekly court sessions, intensive treatment, frequent visits with a probation officer, employment and continued education.
Defendants whose charges involve violence, weapons, sale to minors, sex offenses or who are deemed to be kingpins of drug operations are exempt. So are those who lack transportation – a crucial element to making every treatment and court appointment.
“You can’t skate,” U.S. Attorney John Kacavas said.
Laplante holds weekly meeting with the participants, and invites them to challenge why he makes them budget their time or their money, instructs them to write essays on the biggest hurdle they’re facing or tells them to find a hobby.
Defense attorney Jaye Rancourt, part of the team that began shaping the concept with Laplante in January 2009, said one incentive to succeed is the possibility of avoiding years behind bars.
“It’s difficult for people who come out of incarceration to find jobs,” Rancourt said. “The idea is not to cause that disruption. We’re trying to keep them in their environments and employed. These are people who committed crimes because of drug addictions. If we can cure that, they’re not going to commit crimes anymore. It’s a big undertaking.”
The program would not have been possible before January 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines were advisory only, and could not hobble a judge’s discretion to mete out a shorter or no sentence.
David Sellers, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said the only other federal drug court he’s aware of that is not a re-entry program is the one run by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Gormon at the federal court in Peoria, Ill.
Gormon said his program is more of a classic pretrial diversion program. If the defendant successfully completes treatment, the charges are dismissed. He said that even after the costs of treatment and more intensive probation, his program has saved the system about $3 million by keeping nearly 40 defendants out of federal prisons.
In New Hampshire, Arthur Wilson of Dover was admitted to the LASER program in late July. Asked before court why he wanted in, he replied, “Because I don’t want to die. I want to save my life.”
The program has now grown to six participants, including one who has already been knocked out by a drug possession arrest. None agreed to be interviewed. Some said through their lawyers that they were not yet confident of their success and feared jinxing themselves.
The program is a recognition of both the role drugs play in driving crime and that addiction can be staunched by intensive rehabilitation programs and close monitoring of offenders.
In fiscal year 2009, 45 percent of the 205 people sentenced in federal court in New Hampshire were convicted of drug offenses, according to U.S. Sentencing Commission statistics. And 83 percent of those convicts were dealing in highly addictive crack or power cocaine.
“This is a smarter way,” Kacavas said. “What we’ve done in the past doesn’t work. We keep building more and more prisons. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and it doesn’t reduce crime.”
Costs of the program are absorbed by the district’s federal probation office, headed by Tom Tarr.
“We’re targeting people with long-standing addiction problems whose criminal activities relate to their addiction,” Tarr said. “That’s where the focus should be.”
Defense lawyers and probation officers involved in the program said the cooperation of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Laplante’s commitment of time, are vital to the program. Before being appointed to the bench, Laplante prosecuted federal drug cases.
“He has a pretty good feel for what’s going on in the streets,” said Mark Sisti, one of the defense lawyers assigned to the program. “He’s not a pushover, but he’s fair.”
Rancourt said that, over the course of the past four months, she has watched the participants drop their distrust and embrace the support being offered them. “There’s a sense of pride in every little step,” she said.
They have landed jobs and, in some cases, promotions. Some talk in open court about tackling old credit problems and confronting family issues. Grassie is in school, working part-time and just started drivers education.
“You really get to see small steps in a progression which, hopefully, is going to be a life-changing event,” Rancourt said.

Comment from unhappygrammy:

What about recovering addict's with children? Recovering addict's who are court-ordered OUT of treatment in order to regain custody of their children, which is discriminatory and illegal?
Will the NH court's give them a second chance or will they still terminate parental right's, illegally?
According to the NH Statute: §§ 170-C:5; 169-C:24-a,
Circumstances That Are Not Grounds for Termination In NH are:
Alcohol or Drug Induced Incapacity
Abuse/Neglect or Loss of Rights of Another Child
Failure to Maintain Contact
Failure to Establish Paternity
Why are recovering addict's, who are parent's singled out to lose in the NH court system?