By The Center for Court Innovation
A crime is ruled de minimus if it is considered too small to be cause for concern. But when a crime is committed over and over, can it still be considered a trifle?
“Is it still de minimus if a hundred sandwiches are taken?” asked Judge Fred Bonner, who presides over the Seattle Community Court. Bonner says that people who are in survival mode are going to commit acts of theft to survive, and often these small crimes indicate larger societal problems far from trifling.
Seattle had been struggling with low-level crime, such as theft and prostitution, and many of the people committing these crimes were homeless or mentally ill. The closure of two mental hospitals in the area, as part of the national deinstitutionalization movement in the 1980s, further exacerbated Seattle’s problem.
“Criminal trespass, theft, prostitution, alcohol and drug-related crime — those were the main kinds of crimes we were dealing with,” said Assistant City Attorney Tuere Sala. “They are what we call quality-of-life crimes — and they are usually crimes that are committed more out of a need to survive than an intention to injure others.”
And while the intention may not have been to injure any one individual, the cumulative effect of this kind of offending on a community can be devastating. “Even if you think it’s a faceless crime,” said defense attorney Nancy Waldman, of the Associated Counsel for the Accused, “somebody is violated. If a business feels that way, they’re more inclined to move their business away from any given district. It has an effect on the whole city.”
A non-partisan issue
Seattle City Attorney Peter S. Holmes said, “This is a non-partisan issue: Everyone wants to reduce crime and save money, and that’s ultimately what community court is about.”
In the search for an appropriate response to Seattle’s low-level crime, then-City Attorney Tom Carr and then-Chief of the Public and Community Safety Division Robert Hood learned about the community court model, which can often apply problem-solving approach to quality-of-life offenses.
In March 2005, through the collaborative efforts of the Seattle Municipal Court, the Seattle City Attorney, and the Associated Counsel for the Accused, the Seattle Community Court opened in the municipal court building to serve the downtown district. “We took those individuals who had no place to go, who had spent many days in jail over the years,” said Judge Bonner, “and we designed our program to address those needs.”
Like most community courts across the U.S., by combining punishment with help, the Seattle Court seeks to address the social needs associated with crime, repair the harm done, and help transform offenders into productive members of the community. The Seattle Court has had over 3,000 clients since its 2005 opening, and in 2007 the court expanded its jurisdiction from downtown to the entire city.
The Seattle Community Court handles only defendants who have committed low-level misdemeanors and do not present a public safety risk. In lieu of paying a fee or spending time in jail, all defendants who opt in to the community court are assessed for social service needs and then must contact each social service link, such as community service opportunities identified during assessment.
It is common practice in community courts to use alternatives to detention, such as community service as a sanction — participants in the Seattle Court have completed over 50,000 hours of community service, the equivalent of approximately $500,000 worth of labor — but Judge Bonner stresses the importance of evolving these programs to also educate people about the effects quality-of-life crime has on the community.
“We want to teach as well,” Bonner added, “and they can earn [community service] hours by learning about the impact their offenses have had on the business community.
We could send everybody to be street sweepers, but that is not necessarily addressing the needs that they have.” If offenders successfully complete the program, their case can be dismissed, which will later come into play when they are seeking housing and employment. Additionally, the Resource Center, which is on site, helps to further connect clients of the court to information about jobs, housing, counseling, and classes to help them get back on track.
To read the full article click here.
_______________________________________________
The Center for Court Innovation is a public/private think tank that implements and studies new justice initiatives. Through publications and hands-on assistance, the Center disseminates what it learns to justice practitioners around the U.S. and world, helping them aid victims, reduce crime, strengthen neighborhoods, and earn greater public trust. The Center has received the Peter F. Drucker Award for Non-Profit Innovation, the Innovations in American Government Award from Harvard University and the Ford Foundation, and the Prize for Public Sector Innovation from the Citizens Budget Commission, among numerous awards. To learn more, visit www.courtinnovation.org and follow on Facebook and Twitter.