The sentiments embodied in the above statements, unfortunately, represent the everyday reality in some criminal specialty and treatment courts across the country. Over the past ten to fifteen years, many judges, court officials, legislators, academics, and other policy-makers confronted with rising recidivism and failed attempts to rid society of “the criminal element,” embarked upon a campaign to address social problems thought to lead to criminal activity. The so-called specialty courts or “problem-solving courts” are the embodiment of the therapeutic and restorative justice movements at work. Hundreds of criminal court systems around the country have implemented various forms of courts which offer the promise of “specialized justice,” to address a myriad of social issues, including drug addiction, domestic violence, sexual dysfunction, nuisance crimes, and homelessness. An unintended and, as yet, largely ignored consequence of this burgeoning movement, however, may spell a threat to our adversary system. The standard premise behind these courts is the emasculation of the traditional role of the criminal defender as a zealous advocate fighting against the system. Despite the importance of defenders insuring courts adhere to principles of substantive and procedural due process, the defender in specialty courts becomes, in most instances, a collaborator. He collaborates with the judge and prosecutors, thereby taking on a role that works to diminish the effectiveness of the defender overall, decreases the confidence defendants have in the outcome, and supports a culture of ineffectiveness and under-representation. More importantly, citizens most in need of justice and traditionally overrepresented in the criminal justice system may be adversely affected the most by this turn of events. Statistics and research from specialty courts indicate that indigent criminal defendants and those from racial and ethnic minority groups are often over-represented in specialty courts, thus bearing more than their fair share of the danger of indifferent representation. . . .
