Sentencing Orders and Diversion Programs

Not to be snarky, but I think this tidbit from Amen Clinic is dead on the money:

"Psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who rarely look at the organ they treat. Psychiatrists continue to make diagnoses the same way they did 100 years ago, based on clinical exams and symptom clusters. There is a better way. SPECT imaging is a clinically useful way to look at brain function." 18 Ways that SPECT can Help You

We see this in Florida Criminal Law on a regular basis. Uniformed prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers and judges do not understand that the brain is the hardware and mind is the software. Florida Criminal Law has attempted to inch forward into the 21st century with first offender and other diversion programs such as Drug Court, Mental Health Court, and Veteran's Court. Yet these programs - and others - are quite frankly, an intellectual embarrassment. We need a change that is not incremental, but one on an order of magnitude. We need to put the money in the system up front and get the most accurate diagnostic evaluations possible, and that means the use of imaging technologies such as SPECT.

Each of these diversion programs essentially use outdated technology. Sure, they are better than expensive, harsh, incarcerative sentences, yet they usually fail in the long run. Why? They don't look at the organ sought to be treated. 

Florida Criminal Law revolves around discovery - the process of learning about the other side's case in the form of reports, witness lists, depositions, examination of physical evidence and more. Yet when it comes to diversion programs and sentencing orders designed to treat the bodily organ responsible for some of the most dangerous and damaging behaviors which are reasonably foreseeable to recur, we rely on guesswork. This is especially true for Mental Health Court, Veteran's Court, Drug Court and sentencing conditions such as Anger Management and Domestic Violence Intervention Programs. How bad can it get? A war veteran tried and convicted of quadruple homicide when he was making an obvious cry for help for several years. Four innocent people dead, including three children, and the taxpayers literally pay millions of dollars for the sentence imposed. 

For clarity, let me add this disclaimer: Not everyone needs treatment nor a SPECT scan. Yet many do, and guesswork in the place of discovery would often be a ground for a Rule 3.850 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel motion. Yet our laws, rules, procedures, sentencing protocols, treatment diagnostics and basic problem solving skills as lawyers and judges are simply tossed out of the window of common sense.  Our legal test for insanity is from the 1830's. 

Finally, there will be the doubters who question the technology or the approach, and even more who will complain about the cost. Yet these are often the same people calling for more and more prison time without mention of the cost to the taxpayers. Cost is not the excuse, cost is the biggest reason. Inadequately funding diversion programs is foolish, funding them for accurate diagnostics and verifiable treatment results just makes good fiscal sense.