MASS. SJC Sets the Recovery Movement Back to the Dark Ages

On Monday, July 16th , the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the highest court in the Commonwealth, unanimously ruled that a judge can require defendants with substance use disorders to remain drug-free as a condition of probation and send them to jail if they relapse.

The case had been closely watched by prosecutors, drug courts and addiction medicine specialists. For many, it signifies a debate over the nature of addiction itself - whether or not addiction is a disease or a moral failing.

In COMMONWEALTH vs. JULIE A. ELDRED the defense argued that addiction is a chronic brain disease, in which the addict is prone to relapse by the nature of the disease, compromising the individuals ability to abstain. The prosecution (The Attorney General) for their part presented to the court an opinion that addiction varies in intensity and that individuals have the ability to overcome it and that in some cases punitive measures can influence that ability. If you punish them, they will simply be inspired to give up the one thing that gives them relief.

 According to The New York Times, the case was brought by Julie A. Eldred, who had been convicted of larceny for stealing to support her heroin habit. In 2016, a district judge gave her a year’s probation, facing up to a 30-month sentence for violating conditions. The judge ordered her to begin outpatient treatment and remain drug-free. Eldred enrolled in a program and began taking Suboxone, a medication that can reduce cravings and symptoms of withdrawal. Shortly afterward, she relapsed and, she said, returned to her doctor for help, asking for a stronger dose of Suboxone.

The Times article goes on to say:

"Eleven days after her probation began, Ms. Eldred tested positive for fentanyl. The judge ordered her to go to inpatient treatment, but no placement could immediately be found. What should be done with her? It was the beginning of Labor Day weekend, and Ms. Eldred’s parents were out of town.

'The judge was faced with either releasing the defendant and risking that she would suffer an overdose and die or holding her in custody until a placement at an inpatient treatment facility became available,' Justice Lowy wrote, in the decision handed down Monday.

During the 10 days she was in a medium-security prison, Ms. Eldred went through withdrawal. Suboxone was not prescribed."

One of Ms. Eldred’s lawyers, Lisa Newman-Polk, called Monday’s decision was the court having had “rubber-stamped the status quo, dysfunctional way in which our criminal justice system treats people suffering from addiction.” Newman-Polk argued that sending someone with a severe substance use disorder to jail for relapsing amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general, in an uncharacteristic lack of compassion, said, “We are pleased the Supreme Judicial Court today affirmed a court’s ability to take an individualized approach to probation that encourages recovery and rehabilitation to help probationers avoid further incarceration.”

This ruling by the SJC, while not exactly taking a position on addiction, flies in the face of the well-established disease concept that the clinical, medical, and social communities have argued for and, for the most part, accepted. In effect, the ruling by the MA SJC could set the recovery movement back on its heals for the foreseeable future.  Punishing people for what is essentially beyond their control is arcane and irresponsible. We should expect more from our courts and our Attorney General.