ABSTRACT
An adversary system of decision-making has three chief characteristics, each of which relates directly to the role of counsel. Given these characteristics, it should come as little surprise that most adversarial adjudications require the parties to seek the assistance of counsel. While treatment-based drug courts vary considerably according to each jurisdiction's statutory context, political environment, available resources, and operational goals, certain core features tend to define virtually all of these undertakings. Almost without exception, these courts mute the traditional adversarial positions of prosecutor and defendant, and shift the process so that it becomes judge-driven rather than lawyer-driven. Treatment courts following the deferred prosecution model attempt to identify suitable defendants within days of their initial arrest, in order to capitalize on the therapeutic value of the "trauma and anxiety" associated with being taken into custody.
