Staff of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court discuss how they help ex-offenders make the transition from incarceration
to the community.

ROBERT V. WOLF: Hi. This is Rob Wolf,
director of communications at the Center for Court Innovation, and welcome to another episode of New Thinking, a
podcast produced by the Center for Court Innovation to highlight practitioners, researchers, and others who are experimenting
with new approaches to justice.

Today I’m in the Harlem Community Justice Center with some
people who make the Harlem Reentry Court a reality. The reentry court, which was launched in 2001, is one of many
experiments around the United States seeking to address the fact that within three years of their release from state
or federal prison, about half of ex-offenders return for either a new crime or parole violation.

With
me today are Administrative Law Judge Grace Bernstein of the Division of Parole, Senior Parole Officer Alfonso Camacho,
Reentry Coordinator Nigel Jackson, and Deputy Project Director of the Harlem Community Justice Center John MeGaw.
Welcome everybody.

ALL: Hello.

WOLF:
So let me start off with a straightforward question. What is the Harlem Parole Reentry Court?

JOHN
MEGAW: Rob, we opened up in 2001 and it was an effort by the Division of Parole, which sort of acknowledged
the difficulty of men and women who had gotten out of prison staying out of prison. Nigel and Al Camacho’s staff
go into prison prior to the release of the inmate to get a lot of information. Then when they come out on the day
that they’re released, they appear here and they appear before Judge Bernstein.

And the idea
is that they will—they need to be more accountable, and we help them get to jobs, we help them get into treatment
programs, and every other week review how things are going.

We work with them for six months,
but if they successfully make it through their first six months after release, then we have a big graduation ceremony
and celebrate their success.

WOLF: Generally, how long have they
been in prison? Is there a wide range?

ALFONSO CAMACHO: Our parolees
consist of violent and non-violent offenders that can vary in time of incarceration from a year to five to 10. One
individual in particular just spent a significant amount of time in jail for 20 years; and he’s doing well by
the way.

WOLF: So I would think that someone who’s been in
jail that long has a tremendous number of needs, you know, housing, job, I mean just getting reoriented into the
community. And John referred to the kinds of services, but, I mean, how do you really get in there and support someone
like that?

CAMACHO: Well, unlike the traditional services where
mostly everything is done by referral, here at the Harlem Reentry all the agencies involved are anticipating this
person’s arrival with more or less a coherent plan in store for them with the goal hopefully that this individual,
the needs are already known by each inter-dependent agency and therefore to lead to the same basically common result
of hopefully providing services this individual may need.

GRACE BERNSTEIN:
Last year we’ve had a number of individuals who had served a significant amount of time, 20 years I think, some
even more.

When they come out of prison, they’re very motivated, but they come out of prison
sometimes with no place to go. We provide them immediate housing.

One guy said he didn’t know
anything about a Metrocard when he got out. And he actually went back to school. And these are men in their fifties,
these are not young people, some are in their forties.

And you know, we give them what they need,
and there’s a very supportive environment here. But that, you know, a supportive environment and everything
isn’t what does it. What does it is the immediacy of the services; that’s what does it, and parole officers
and senior parole officers who really want this to succeed and work very, very hard with the individuals because
it’s not always “Oh, he comes in after six months. It’s perfect.”

WOLF:
And I imagine that there are some people who have been in prison a long time. They’ve been involved with the
justice system, and then they’re brought to a courthouse after their release. Do some people, I don’t know,
react negatively or have some issues around that, being brought before a judge again when they thought they were
done with judges.

NIGEL JACKSON: I would say yes. They definitely
have a problem with seeing a judge. Ninety nine percent of the people, you know, they have a big problem coming to
see a judge as well as a parole officer. Maybe I’d give them a 20-minute talk to everyone that we’re interviewing
before individual interviews. There’s a lot of apprehension. So at one point I asked, “Yo, what’s
the problem?” And he said, “Every time I see a judge, I go to prison.” So at that point, I changed
my whole spiel and I let them know how Judge Bernstein is. She’s their biggest ally and they have to meet here
before they judge what type of person she is and what her role is. And I let them know the only person they can violate
you first is yourself and your parole officer. And Judge Bernstein is there to help you. And if you need a kick in
the butt, she’s going to kick you in the butt.

WOLF: So Judge
Bernstein, I understand that you spend a good part of your week actually at Rikers—that’s not part of the reentry
court—where you are looking at parole violators perhaps.

BERNSTEIN:
I do parole violators. And if somebody violates from here, then they know if that has to happen, then we tell them
this is the whole purpose, for to not send you back to jail. That’s my opening statement: “We’re here
not to send you back to jail,” that they know they’re going to come before me. And they know when I tell
them it’s not a Chinese menu where you can choose some of your conditions like part of A and not B, that you
have to do everything; if there’s a problem, come in and talk to us. We try very hard to work with them as long
as they’re working with us.

There was one incident yesterday, if I can have a minute, which
I think really says a lot about the program. I was in the waiting room where people stand and I’ll talk to them
and they’ll tell me their problems; they’re doing well enough; whatever. But this particular individual
said his son graduated high school and is in and will be going back to where he lives and to college. And he wanted
to bring his son here to meet everybody. And he wasn’t sure—could he come in next week even though it’s
not his regular day to meet his parole officer and bring his son? You know, every once in a while there’s something
that says everything. I think that says everything.

WOLF: Well,
let me ask you. Your role is very different when you’re here. Do you feel different as a judge? You’re
doing something different; your function is different.

BERNSTEIN:
Yes. I feel sometimes that it’s at the finish line and I’m coaching, “You can do this just a little bit
more; you can do this,” and sometimes to say to them you care, sometimes you make them feel that they can do
something, that they can have confidence in themselves when they fall to move forward again. I feel that my purpose
here really is to make sure that they do not violate and go back to jail. This is why I’m here; this is why
I want to be here.

MEGAW: The irony to your earlier point about
their reluctance, resistance to see a judge when they first hear about it from Nigel and the parole staff in Queensboro
before they’re released, the irony is that when they complete their six months, very few want to return to regular
parole supervision. They all want to stay in this program.

Unfortunately, we can’t continue
because there are new parolees that need to come in. But it’s a complete turnaround in that time because of
the attention that they get here.

WOLF: Do you find it a challenge
sometimes to find them housing or jobs because people are reluctant to house ex-offenders or employ ex-offenders?

CAMACHO: We do have agencies that can accommodate at least this
particular group of individuals because, again, we have established relationships with other agencies like Palladia
that can take our undomiciled offenders. So we do have things in place for that.

MEGAW:
It’s temporary housing. There’s no question that housing is tight especially for someone who is working a low-level
job and doesn’t have the money to be able to afford an apartment in Manhattan.

Jobs, actually,
the other part, you know, jobs is one of the other stumbling blocks. We have a – the Division of Parole works with
and we work with an agency called the Center for Employment Opportunities. So we set up—and again, it’s the
immediacy of the services—the parolees begin transitional work right away. And so, they are going each day, getting
into a routine of getting up in the morning, getting to a job, working, and they get a paycheck at the end of every
day. So they have a little money in their pocket to begin to support themselves and to provide for their families,
something they may not have done before for many years. We also work with agencies in this area by encouraging them
to hire ex-offenders.

WOLF: And so, have you observed certain characteristics
that the most successful participants have? I mean what makes for a successful participant in the reentry court?

BERNSTEIN: I think what it is, is real determination not to go back
to jail. “I’m not going back to jail and I’m going to do whatever is necessary.” And persistence: “I’m
not getting discouraged.” And the problem is the drugs though; that’s a whole separate issue. I’ll let you address
that.

CAMACHO: There’s a renewed sense of responsibility for their
actions. I mean this is a short-term program for six months. But to just instill certain behaviors that can carry
on to their next PO because when they leave here, they do get transferred to a regular field PO. But unlike that
field PO getting a fresh individual out of jail with all these needs, these individuals have probably achieved or
reached most of their needs. So it becomes actually a pretty decent transition for them to continue their life with
parole as part of it, remain working, stable residency and, of course, absence new drugs. Those three things, are
basically the most common factors to recidivism that I’ve seen in my years as a P.O.

BERNSTEIN:
Some parolees react very positively when they have extra responsibilities thrown on them. They’re all of a sudden
responsible for a child that they didn’t think they’d be responsible for and they know they have to get
themselves together; when somebody in their family is ill and they know they have to be there for that person.

CAMACHO:
Just finding that a motivating factor.

BERNSTEIN: Yeah. Something
that says “I’m going to do it.”

CAMACHO: It’s no longer
“do it for parole or you get locked up.” That premise is out the window.

WOLF:
Nationally, I understand there’s a trend towards more attention on reentry. That’s a focus. What’s
your sense of that?

MEGAW: Fifteen year ago the term “reentry”
was not really in the vocabulary of criminal justice experts and policy folks. The fact is that about 600,000 men
and women are released from state and federal prisons each year. And there’s a recognition that about half of
them—there’s the problem—about half of them end up in jail or prison within three years.

And
so, in 2001, I think 2001 was really the year in which, not just in New York State, but other states as well, where
they started to look at the rate of recidivism and the approach to dealing with that problem.

And
so, New York State and this court in particular was – I actually thought we were the first in the United States.
It turns out I think we’re the second or the third reentry court that started. But 2001 is when the other courts
started as well. Now I just learned, actually a couple of weeks ago at a conference in St. Louis, there’s about
50 reentry courts around the country.

WOLF: What kind of results
have you seen? Have you been able to track participants and see if the lessons that they’ve learned here have
stuck?

MEGAW: Here, since actually 2006, we’re proud to report
that over 85 percent of the men and women we worked with have been successful. So that means that they haven’t
violated or had new arrests.

CAMACHO: And I can even add more recently
to that. Our graduating class here—we’re going to have a graduation soon—from the beginning of the year, January,
quite frankly I totaled I think about three year arrests from the whole population of over 70 parolees, give or take.
That’s amazing.

WOLF: That’s great.

CAMACHO:
What I’d like to see is really agency, cooperation, and coordination combined with individual determination
resulting in positive numbers that you see here.

WOLF: Well, I wonder
if any of you have any final comments you’d like to share with others who might be thinking about ways to ease
the transition from prison to the community.

JACKSON: Like everyone
says, the coordination with different agencies that provide the services, the service providers. You have to have
some sort of collaboration. And when we come together at our monthly meetings, this also makes the person be responsible
because they know that we’re talking, they know they can’t go and jive us: “Oh I went to the program.”
No, we get a report every week.

So these are the things that I –the programs are very important
as well as our collaborations and the responsibility that the parolee has, that he knows that we are speaking to
each other every week or everyday.

CAMACHO: Communities, localities,
more or less, do have to take a responsibility of the population that’s coming in from jail to their immediate
districts or residences, whatever. And with that in mind, their parole officers can more or less help these people
reach a successful completion of their sentence by having immediacy, what we have here, but is so lacking in the
general parole population as a whole.

WOLF: Right. Right.

JACKSON:
The word I was looking for is “accountability” that the parolee has when he knows that we’re all in communication
with each other. They can’t lie. If we have a problem with someone, and the world is so small …

CAMACHO:
For this one little community, this one little area and this one project going on here, I really think it does more
or less give a model to what should be the new 21st century view of criminal intervention and changes in social behavior.

BERNSTEIN: About the program, one of the big things is the continued
innovation in the program. The program started originally with a very small amount of people in it, very small case
loads, all non-violent. We now have people who are violent. And for the first time, we’re now taking women.

So there is constant innovations within the program itself, and the one thing that I think needs
to be worked on is jobs, jobs, jobs, and the community being open to hiring people.

WOLF:
Thank you, all, so much for taking the time to tell me about your work here at the Harlem Parole Reentry Court.

I’ve
been talking with the Administrative Law Judge Grace Bernstein from the Division of Parole, and Senior Parole Officer
Alfonso Camacho, and the reentry coordinator, Nigel Jackson; and the deputy project director of the Harlem Community
Justice Center, John MeGaw. Thanks so much to all of you.

And to learn more about the Harlem
Parole Reentry Court, you can visit the Center for Court Innovation’s website at www.courtinnovation.org. At
the bottom of the home page you’ll see a tab labeled “reentry” and you can subscribe to the New Thinking
podcast through iTunes or you can visit us on the podcast page at www.courtinnovation.org. I’m Rob Wolf, director
for communications at the Center for Court Innovation. Thanks for listening.

July 2008

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Judge Miriam Cyrulnik explains how the court–the first of its kind in the country–addresses the unique needs
of adolescent domestic violence victims and perpetrators.

ROBERT V. WOLF:
Hi, this is Rob Wolf, director of communications at the Center for Court Innovation, and welcome to another episode
of New Thinking, a podcast produced by the Center for Court Innovation to highlight practitioners, researchers, and
others, who are experimenting with new approaches to justice. Today I’m in the chambers of King’s County
Criminal Court Judge Miriam Cyrulnik, who presides over the Brooklyn Youthful Offender Domestic Violence Court and
also the Adult Domestic Violence Court and Criminal Court. Although today I’d like to focus on Youthful Offender
Domestic Violence Court. I thought I’d start out by asking you a little bit about the differences between the
adult court and the youthful court. I’m a little more familiar with the domestic violence courts that work with
adult offenders and the goals of those courts, as I understand them are victim safety and accountability, which is
all about increasing monitoring of defendants to make sure they abide strictly by court orders. The youthful offender
domestic violence court, I understand, works with young people as the name suggests, 16 to 19 years old. Is that
correct?

CYRULNIK: Correct.

WOLF:
So I thought I would ask you, are the goals in your court the same as they are in the adult version of the court?

CYRULNIK: First of all, it’s good to be with you today. In many ways the
courts are the same because it’s still a court of law, there’s still a presumption of innocence, cases
have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a defendant. What’s similar is, as you said the goals
of victim safety, batterer accountability. The part works with teenagers, as you said, ages 16 to 19 who are in dating
relationships where there are allegations of violence. We have some same-sex couples, but predominantly male and
female. We have a designated victim advocate who works with the district attorney’s office to do outreach to
teenage victims. We have a dedicated batterers program that’s targeted towards the behavioral learning and I
guess psycho-social development of teenagers. It is a bridged program, it is free, it’s a 12 week batterers
program that’s free, as opposed to the adults who will go for 26 weeks and have to pay for the program. And
I will probably see these kids more often when I ask them to come back to court for monitoring, etc. Those are the
main differences.

WOLF: And how do the types of offending differ
from your typical adult domestic violence case, to a case involving a teen defendant? And this, of course, is in
the context of both situations we’re talking about misdemeanors, is that correct?

CYRULNIK:
My jurisdiction is over misdemeanors and violations, which for those who may not be familiar, a misdemeanor is a
criminal offense, the maximum penalty is a year on a misdemeanor. The kinds of cases that we see are very similar.
You get a certain percentage of young people who are charged with actual assault, where there is an allegation of
striking or injuring the complaining witness. You have menacing threats to that person, harassment, threats to the
other person. We’re starting to see, of course, technology being what it is, we’re starting to see more
cases involving text messages and emails that are perhaps threatening or alleged to be threatening. And I’m seeing
that with regards to adults as well, but of course kids are much more technically savvy so you’re more likely
to see it there. But there are some cases in which there are allegations of physical assault. No different than any
other.

WOLF: I was looking at some statistics about the court and
I thought it was interesting to note that although you speak of dating relationships, in about 50 percent of cases
the victim and the defendant have a child in common?

CYRULNIK: Yeah,
they do. And there’s a small percentage, probably under 20 percent I think where they may actually have a second
child, two children in common. And that was surprising, that was shocking to us, and it presents lots of challenges,
particularly in terms of working with the victims—shelters are not geared towards teenaged kids into the shelter
system, particularly with children. We have a number of situations that we come across where the young girl, perhaps
after the child is conceived or born, her parents do not want her in the house and often she’s living with the
defendant and his family. These kids lead very complicated lives.

WOLF:
I know that an important component of what you do is to offer services to the victims, so I wonder what kinds of
services you do offer.

CYRULNIK: Most of the services that might
be offered to victims probably would be through the Family Justice Center, through the district attorney’s office.
The court itself does not offer services to the victims. There is an outreach made to every single complaining witness
in these cases. I don’t want to speak for the D.A., but their goal is to get the complaining witness, the victim,
to sign a supporting deposition so the case can go forward. But if she’s not cooperative, they will still try
to offer her services and counseling, including shelter issues, if there are immigration issues. The Family Justice
Center has a huge array of services available.

WOLF: How are these
situations handled before?

CYRULNIK: Most cases involving teenage
couples who are in a dating relationship, they were treated as any other domestic violence case. I mean certainly,
10 or 12 or 15 years ago, domestic violence cases were not given any special attention so the majority of those cases
used to just get dismissed. The problem of teen dating violence was really no one spoke about it, no one looked at
it.

WOLF: And what’s the advantage to having a separate forum
where you focus on teen dating violence as opposed to the adult domestic violence?

CYRULNIK:
First of all, frankly, even in terms of the batterer’s program, no one thinks it’s a good idea to have
a 17-year-old teenager who may have had one incident, sitting next to a 50-year-old career batterer. The kinds of
discussions in the batterers program are going to be totally different. Their development is at a different stage,
their brain capacity is at a different stage, physiologically. So there are all kinds of issues to separate the teenagers
out from some of the adults. It also sends a message to any of the teenagers who happen to be in court or who hear
about it that we take it seriously. Victims get the message that we take it seriously. We’re willing to listen
and it’s certainly very important in terms of their feeling satisfied with the outcome or safe in going forward,
or just making arrangements that will assist them in their safety plan.

WOLF:
When this court started, and it started in 2003? Is that correct?

CYRULNIK:
Right.

It was really one of the first. I think there might have been one in California, but then
it was the second of these courts, domestic violence courts that focused on youthful offenders. And I wonder, you
know, do you feel like the idea is catching on? Have there been replications? Do you get inquiries? What’s your
sense?

CYRULNIK: We get them all the time. The one in California
was a family court model. My understanding was that this was the first in a criminal court setting.

WOLF:
Oh, okay.

CYRULNIK: There is now a youthful offender court in the
Bronx. There are plans to open them in a number of different jurisdictions, and we get inquiries all the time. We
get people from around the world who are coming in to watch what we do at YODVC.

WOLF:
And I wonder, from your perspective as a judge, do you have a different experience from before for the adults versus
the teens?

CYRULNIK: Absolutely, absolutely. I talk to them differently.
I am much more likely to—they are all represented by counsel—but I am much more likely to actively engage them in
conversation. If they’re in the program, if they come to court, they’re gonna get that positive reinforcement
right up front, which in our part consists of my promise to them that we call their cases as the first one on the
calendar. And they respond to the fact that court begins at 2:15 and they may be done for the day at 2:30. And that’s
a real concrete reward. And a lot of them focus on that and I make sure that we honor that. I will sometimes take
notes in the file about if they have had a child, if they are in school, if they are graduating, and I’ll ask
them how the child is doing, if there’s no order of protection, obviously. I also talk pretty sternly to them
if there is a problem and they watch how I handle everyone else’s case too, if there’s any problem. They wait
to see what the result is gonna be.

WOLF: What’s your sense
of their understanding of domestic violence? I mean I, obviously they must have thought this was a way to engage—a
normal way or an appropriate way to engage with their partner.

CYRULNIK:
I’m sure. That, that is what I’ve heard anecdotally from some of the facilitators who do group. They’re
exposed to domestic violence at home, they’re exposed to violence generally in the street. They’re exposed
to negative stereotypes of women in music, videos. All these things help to convey the message that you’re the
man and it’s okay if you control her and tell her what to do. And we have immigrant populations here and there
are cultural issues that come up. So there are a lot of different things that we have to deal with to sort of get
the message across that it is not acceptable.

WOLF: And what are
the consequences of non-compliance?

CYRULNIK: There are a number
of different options. Whenever I take a plea, I make sure that the defendant knows that he—and most of them are men
so I’ll say he—that he knows that he is facing 15 days in jail on a violation, up to 90 days in jail on a B misdemeanor,
or up to a year in jail on an A misdemeanor. And those are some serious jail sentences for someone of their age.
If they’re in the batterer’s program, if they’re kicked out one time, they are eligible to be reinstated
to the program with a three class penalty. So they have to finish a total of 15. If they don’t do it the second
time, they go to jail. And there is nothing that makes the point more crystal clear to the guys in the audience than
when cuffs get slapped on someone else. And they’re told you do it or you don’t. You don’t: you go
to jail.

WOLF: It’s obviously very challenging work and I wonder
if you enjoy it.

CYRULNIK: I always tell people it’s hard to
put the words ‘enjoy’ and ‘domestic violence’ in the same sentence, but I like what I’m
doing. I’ve been doing it for almost four years, and it’s tough when I have to put somebody in jail, but when
I see a young man who has really seemed to get it, and when you have a chance to actually make a difference in somebody’s
life, it’s a wonderful thing. It’s a wonderful thing.

WOLF:
Well thank you very much. I’ve really enjoyed talking with you. I’ve been talking with Judge Miriam Cyrulnik
of the King’s County Criminal Court. To learn more about the Brooklyn Youth Offender Domestic Violence Court,
you can visit the publications page at the Center for Court Innovation’s website. The main site is www.courtinnovation.org,
and there’s a tab at the top of the page labeled publications. And on that page, in addition to all kinds of
interesting articles and white papers, you’ll find a publication called Youth
Dating Violence: Can a Court Help Break the Cycle? by my colleague Christine Herman, which gives more background
on youthful offender domestic violence court. You can subscribe to the New Thinking podcast through iTunes or you
can visit us on our podcast page on www.courtinnovation.org. I’m Rob Wolf, director of communications at the
Center for Court Innovation, and thank you so much for taking the time. And thanks, thank you to everyone who’s
been listening.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Judge Matthew D’Emic and others explain how the Brooklyn Mental Health Court links mentally-ill offenders
to treatment and rigorously monitors compliance.

ROBERT V. WOLF:
This is Rob Wolf, director of communications at the Center for Court Innovation. Today we’re going to take a
look at the Brooklyn Mental Health Court, the first court of its kind in New York State to link mentally ill offenders
to treatment as an alternative to jail. Judge Matthew D’emic has presided over the Brooklyn Mental Health Court since
it was created in 2002.

MATTHEW D’EMIC: I’ve had defendants
who were accused – one defendant comes to mind– who plead guilty to arson and the D.A. insisted on a mandate of
there years with the court in order to take the case and he graduated last year. No doubt he would have been in jail.

WOLF: To do this work, D’Emic had to learn about more than the law.
He also had to learn a thing or two about psychiatry. He met for an hour each week with the court psychiatrist to
get a feel for medical terms, diagnoses, and medication. But he emphasizes that he still leaves medical decisions
to the experts.

D’EMIC: I know my boundaries. I’m a lawyer.
I’m not a mental health professional. So as much as I would not let the mental health professionals impose any
kind of a legal mandate on me, I rely on their expertise and don’t try to diagnose anybody or act like a mental
health professional in my own work.

WOLF: On Tuesdays, D’Emic spends
his time with clients in the courtroom. Procedures are very different here than in a conventional courtroom.

D’EMIC:
It’s a very informal atmosphere in the court. I mean my clinical team, which I’m lucky to have, consults
with the lawyers and the defense lawyers, the district attorneys who are also at the proceedings, and, you know,
we get to go through things very efficiently, and yet I think very fairly with justice being done. Every defendant
gets a chance to talk to me. If they want to approach the bench, they are allowed to approach the bench, which you’d
never see in a conventional courtroom.

WOLF: The judge is alternately
stern and welcoming, serious and jovial, depending on each client’s record of compliance with his orders and
their treatment regimes. Those who are doing well receive certificates of achievement when they complete a phase
of their court-ordered treatment.

D’EMIC: How are you? Alright?

WOMAN: I am fine.

D’EMIC:
Good. So come on up. I have your Phase IV certificate. (APPLAUSE).

WOLF:
Jail sentences are imposed on those who fail.

D’EMIC: Why is she
not on her medication? Why is she not on time for her program?

WOMAN:
Sir, um…

D’EMIC: I thought that going to jail might …

WOMAN:
No, I don’t want to go to jail tonight.

D’EMIC: I thought that
might wake you up a little but it hasn’t.

WOMAN: No, can you please
understand that I looked at my watch and I there was a misunderstanding with the watch.

D’EMIC:
No, I don’t understand that.

WOMAN: Okay, it won’t happen
again.

D’EMIC: OK, come back next week then.

WOMAN:
I’m sorry sir.

WOLF: Judge D’Emic uses the computer on his
desk and a technology program customized for the Brooklyn Mental Health Court to take copious notes on each client.
When clients appear before him, D’Emic strives to make a personal connection.

COLLEEN
MORRISSEY: He keeps notes on his cases and when a client comes up, you know, if she had knit a sweater
on the last date, he might have jotted that down. We all kind of do, you know. You wore this sweatshirt or were going
off to this Yankee game: How was that? How was your birthday? And I think that that personalizes that. And you know,
even you know, note-taking, however somebody does it, the fact that they’re acknowledged and that they’re
important to him. And they also know when they disappoint him.

WOLF:
That was defense attorney Colleen Morrissey of the Legal Aid Society, who noted that the entire treatment team plays
a role in her client’s recovery.

MORRISSEY: With the treatment
team and with their knowledge of substance abuse and relapse and mental health and relapse, and to a certain extent,
clients who may not be taking their medication or – those issues, they’re very familiar with that and I think
that they have a way of educating the court as to what these issues are as well. And that’s very helpful.

WOLF:
For clients like Stephanie, the Brooklyn Mental Health Court is a second chance, one that offers her an opportunity
to not only avoid jail but learn how to live with her mental illness.

STEPHANIE:
Originally my case was downstairs in the regular criminal court trial and when I came up here they said, “We’re
gonna give you a chance, we’re gonna work with you.” I was like “God, I am so happy!” You know, someone’s
going to work with me and help me. So I’m very happy with the program.

WOLF:
What kind of treatment did you have?

STEPHANIE: Oh it’s wonderful.
They sent me to a day program. It’s a clubhouse. I will go there, I go there five days a week and they have
cooking, they have computers, they have interfacing with a client and dealing with the staff. But it’s also
a hands-on program because you get to do a lot of things on your own like answer the phones, and they give you a
lot of responsibilities. So it’s great therapeutic work, so I like it.

WOLF:
What have you learned from your experience?

STEPHANIE: I’ve
learned that the courts of the United States want to work with people, they want to see us in a satisfying, comfortable
situation, as opposed to sending us to the, you know, the jail system and always looking down on us as though we’re
not able to be productive citizens. They’re giving us a chance to actually turn our situation around and become
productive.

WOLF: Lucille Jackson is Director of the Brooklyn Mental
Health Court.

LUCILLE JACKSON: The cases can range from you know,
drug-related offenses to assaults, to, on a case-by-case basis, arson. Also stalking.

WOLF:
Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles Hynes’ Office has been closely involved in the development of the Brooklyn
Mental Health Court. n choosing which cases to bring to the mental health court, Assistant District Attorney David
Kelly says public safety is a top consideration.

DAVID KELLY: We’re
worried about, when we talk about public safety in the context of the mental health court is really future dangerousness
or future criminality, and also, you know, recidivism—getting arrested again and coming back through the system again.
The psychiatrists here do a very good job of giving us, you know, a psychiatric risk assessment, the likelihood of
future dangerousness. And down through the years, we’ve rejected a number of defendants because the doctor was
concerned about the defendant’s future behavior.

The other element is once a defendant has
pled out, he usually has a pretty substantial jail alternative hanging over his head and that ought to be a strong
influence for good behavior in the future. And then, in addition, we never really adjourn a case in mental health
court more than one month into the future if you’ve been doing well. And in the beginning, if you’re brand
new to the court, then we’ll see you almost on a weekly basis, which is almost unheard of in most courtrooms.

WOLF: To find out more about the Brooklyn Mental Health court, visit
www.courtinnovation.org. Thanks for listening. This has been Rob Wolf, director of communications at the Center for
Court Innovation.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Jack Straw, the United Kingdom’s justice secretary and lord chancellor, experiences a judge’s-eye view of the
courtroom, quizzes staff about operations, and meets with a group of ex-offenders who have gotten their lives back
on track during a visit to the Red Hook Community Justice Center in February 2008.

ROBERT
V. WOLF: The courtroom of the Redhook Community Justice Center is, in many ways, like countless courtrooms.
There’s a gallery for witnesses and litigants waiting to appear before the judge, there are court officers.
There are defense attorneys on one side, prosecutors on another. But then you hear this:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS | More