Treatment Not Jails

Continued from previous page ships, entering the workforce, and gaining real skills that will help them succeed, Rico will be learning how to make weapons, smuggle contraband, and survive in a highly militarized environment. There is no real-world application for this skillset, and when Rico is 22 or 23 and released from prison, with a felony conviction and no work history, reintegrating into society will be almost impossible. If there is any hope for Rico to be a productive member of society, he must be given the opportunity to live on his own, as an adult. As Rico becomes an adult, the lessons he learns now are going to be lessons that guide him throughout the rest of his life. So before making this decision, I asked the court, do you feel safer in a world where Rico has learned how to interact with others from licensed mental health professionals, or a world where Rico was educated by fellow inmates at a Correctional Facility?”

Perhaps it won’t surprise you, readers, to learn that the court opted for incarceration rather than continued treatment in this instance. The failures unjustly attributed to Rico by Prosecutors and the Court in his treatment program were simply too difficult to overcome within the larger framework of our current punitive and carceral system. My hope is that as a community we can think more deeply about how to advocate for real, meaningful treatment alternatives to incarceration, especially for our younger clients. Perhaps the problem is that these treatment programs are so accustomed to treating individuals without real behavioral issues who merely engage in treatment to fulfill the mandates of courts that they don’t understand real trauma. Or perhaps the issue is that programs can’t afford mental health practitioners skilled enough to engage complicated participants like Rico, with serious behavioral issues, mental illness, and/ or histories of trauma. Or perhaps we as defense attorneys need more training in dealing with clients’ mental health issues and early life trauma so we can better advocate to the courts on their behalf.

Whatever the issue or issues may be, it’s clear that for clients like Rico, the system simply is not working. And now, because of the system’s failure, Rico will inevitably experience more trauma, learn more anti-social behavior, and be much less able to interact in a non-carceral world when he finishes his sentence. While I don’t pretend to have the answers, I know for certain we can and must continue to show the prosecutors and the courts when these systems fail. We must tell them when they treat our clients poorly, or worse, don’t treat them at all. We must also advocate within our state and local governments for better funding for these programs, as a masters’ degreed social worker who only makes $40,000 a year is certainly not in any position to bring their best selves to their work or their patients. Our clients deserve better, and so do the mental health providers who serve them. By demanding that the government value these services more, we send the message that our clients, too, deserve more respect and value. And hopefully by supporting the infrastructure that works with alternatives to incarceration programs, we can make the mandate of treatment not jails more than a catchy slogan. We can bring more meaningful services to our clients and give them the support they need to heal and learn to live in our society.

Appellate Report

Continued from page 13

3 sex offenders from residing within 1000 feet of a school, see also, Penal Law § 220.00(14)(b) (defining “school grounds”), released offenders are not free to reside anywhere they want. Finding a homeless shelter as a sex offender, particularly in NYC, is a daunting task, as the DOCCS waiting list for this type of housing is 2 to 3 years. See also generally, McCurdy v. Warden, Westchester Co. Corr. Facility, 36 NY3d 251 (2020); Negron v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Corr. Facility, 36 NY3d 32 (2020); Johnson v. Superintendent, Adirondack Corr. Facility, 36 NY3d 187 (2020).

The question here was whether SARA applies to a scenario not contemplated explicitly in Exec. Law § 259-c(14), which only refers to parolees and those conditionally released. But see, Johnson, 36 NY3d at 200 (finding the SARA residency requirement indeed applies to PRS).

The Court concluded that the 1998 Sentencing Reform Act, which brought us PRS under PL § 70.45(3), needs to be considered in this context as part of a “comprehensive reading of the statutory scheme.” See also, Exec. Law § 259-c(2) (referencing PRS, along with parole and conditional release as being under the authority of the Parole Board). Resembling its recent DWI decision in February, the majority described SARA as part of a “comprehensive and multiyear legislative effort to place more stringent restrictions on certain sex offenders living in the community.” See again, Matter of Endara-Caicedo v. DMV, 2022 NY Lexis 164, at *11-13; 2022 NY Slip. Op 00959; 2022 WL 451453 (Feb. 15, 2022) (recognizing the various legislative attempts in ridding society of the scourge of drunk drivers in concluding the 2-hour rule applied to DMV administrative hearings). It does appear that policy issues are again