Death does not get last word

The loss of a loved one, especially of someone young, can leave us at the brink of despair. So overwhelming is the sadness that some of us never find a way to see beyond the grief. The alternative is to resolutely explore the tragedy to find if some good can come of sharing it. This takes a particular strength, for it means having to endure the anguish of the loss with each retelling. The second of these choices was on courageous display at a recent legislative hearing as a number of fathers and mothers recounted the deaths of sons or daughters by overdose.

The issue before the Assembly Judiciary Committee that brought these parents to Trenton was expansion of the state’s Good Samaritan law, which would give immunity to people who call for help should someone in their company suffer a drug overdose. One can well imagine that those testifying would rather have been anywhere, doing anything else than what they were there to do: describe their children’s last hours and know at a core level that the proposal under discussion would have saved their lives.

One woman was clearly shaken at the prospect of sitting before the lawmakers and talking about her son’s overdose. She said under her breath that the legislators intimidated her. More daunting must have been the idea of going in front of a group of strangers to speak about something so personal and so raw that it racked her body. Yet she made her way to the witness table and did just that. She told the panel the stark facts, that instead of someone calling to get medical assistance for her son, “he was left alone to die without the help he needed.” The story embodies the cruelty of having one’s child die coupled with the knowledge that it was preventable.

A father who similarly lost his son followed. He also spoke about the 911 call not made. And after his son died, he recalled lying down with him and feeling the coldness of his body. That image left the hearing room stone silent.

This mother and father each buried a child, seeing the natural order of their world upended. Somehow, having gone through this, they not only did not withdraw but took responsibility for trying to rescue others’ children threatened by what had taken theirs.

Credit should also go to Assemblywoman Connie Wagner, one of the bill’s sponsors. She knows first-hand the experience of a parent seeing a child lost in addiction, but in her case not lost to addiction. At the hearing, she spoke about her son, who, after three separate 911 calls made when he overdosed, has found his way into stable recovery. The Assemblywoman knows well how fortunate she and her family were. She does not pretend to know the depth of loss the witnesses described. But with those stories brought before the legislature, it is impossible to think the Good Samaritan law will be denied in cases of drug overdose for much longer.

- Daniel J. Meara

Treatment for non-violent offenders – Smart on crime at long last

Governor Chris Christie deserves praise for making sentencing reform a central issue in his State of the State. Known for flexing his political muscle, the Republican governor put his bully pulpit to the best possible use in saying the time has come to be smart on crime.

The governor was both firm and caring in his call for providing treatment for non-violent drug offenders instead of putting them in prison. His speech on January 17 insisted that the lives of non-violent offenders are not to be discarded. He said, “We want to help you, not throw you away. We will require you to get treatment. Your life has value.” These lives, as all lives, he said, are worthy of redemption.

He demonstrated he understands addiction to be a disease that exempts no one, that “touches nearly every family” in the state. Denial of having a drug or alcohol problem, he said, has kept many offenders from entering drug court, so his proposal removes the possibility of their opting for a prison term, which would likely see them released only to return to the drug use, crime and re-arrest.

The proposal is large scale, with the governor urging a “transformation” of the way we deal with “drug abuse and incarceration in every corner of New Jersey.” It would expand drug courts to every county in the state, affecting approximately 7,000 non-violent drug offenders.

The governor noted that for many serving prison sentences, drug addiction was the “underlying” problem, the root of the crimes they committed. The numbers bear this out: Slightly less than 30 percent of New Jersey’s prisoners are incarcerated due to a base offense involving drugs and 81 percent have an addiction according to a report by the Urban Institute. Furthermore, the recidivism rates for drug court are very low when compared with the rates for people coming out of prison: 8 percent for drug court graduates as opposed to 67 percent for the general prison population. Studies show that treatment can cut addiction in half, reduce criminal activity by up to 80 percent, reduce arrests up to 64 percent, reduce recidivism by 53 percent and help reclaim thousands to live as responsible parents, taxpayers, and law-abiding citizens.

With the budget in mind, Gov. Christie noted that treating offenders with a drug problem is two-thirds less expensive than imprisoning them. At his town hall meeting in Irvington on January 19, he said the annual cost of incarcerating someone convicted of a non-violent drug crime was $39,000, whereas having that person treated through drug court for one year would be 12,000.

Recognizing the political challenges that will accompany this undertaking, the governor asked the Legislature and the Chief Justice to join him in making it a reality. He has a ready legislative partner in Senator Raymond Lesniak, a Democrat. The senator has a package of bills that would expand drug court, among other reforms, which he discussed at a State House press conference on January 23.

A related area of concern is what becomes of those who graduate from drug court. To complement drug court, the state must put in place reentry programs and policies that help offenders leave behind the circumstances that in many cases contributed to their involvement with drugs. It is crucial, therefore, to remove barriers to employment and education, and Christie and Lesniak have both considered these matters in their reentry proposals.

It was striking that Gov. Christie stressed the human cost of imprisoning people with alcohol or drug problems. He said that everyone deserves a “second chance” and maintained that “no life is disposable.” The governor, whose forceful demeanor is so often at the forefront, in this case showed strength of a different sort. It may well take a conservative of his standing to see sentencing reform through. For the thousands for whom treatment will help them break the cycle of drug use and crime, and for all New Jersey residents, it is surely heartening to see signs of sound policy carrying the day over partisan norms.

Dan Meara

NCADD-NJ Public Information Manager