Seattle Municipal Court
Judge Position No. 7

Damon Shadid

Candidate Questionnaire Responses

  • My 8 years on the bench have taught me a crucial lesson: the criminal misdemeanor system needs reform. For too long we have taken the approach of “felony light” treating the misdemeanor court as a way of convicting and punishing people to “scare” them away from crime. Instead, we need a system that truly gets to the root causes of crime and therefore is truly able to get people out of the criminal legal system.

    In the United States, we have an inadequate social safety net that touches on all parts of a person’s life. This includes lack of affordable housing, mental health treatment, substance use treatment, medical treatment, food security, education resources, job training, respite beds, etc. Many of the misdemeanor crimes in our community occur as a direct result of this lack of services. Our country therefore uses the criminal legal system as a “solution” to the problem of crime instead of investing the resources and political will necessary fully fund a social safety net.

    It is therefore no surprise that the criminal legal system sweeps up poor and BIPOC people at disproportionate rates and then keeps them in the system long term. Each conviction and incarceration adds to the person’s inability to exit the system, and the spiral to the bottom continues.

    Of course, our community needs to be safe. Individuals and business owners should be free of theft, trespass, property destruction, and other types of harassing and economically damaging behavior. But as a community we must look at the root cause of many of these crimes and concentrate on both fixing the social safety net as well as connecting those involved with the criminal legal system to existing services within our community.

  • Based upon the fact that much misdemeanor crime is a direct result of the lack of services in our community, our misdemeanor courts must change their focus from punishment to connection. We must allow people the option and opportunity to connect to the social safety net instead a carceral approach. To accomplish this reform in my own court, I have pursued the following solutions.

    Community Court: Community Court in Seattle had failed on previous occasions because the court pursued a carceral approach instead of a treatment based approached. I was able to bring together the Municipal Court, the Department of Public Defense, and the City Attorney’s office behind a shared vision of connecting low level offenders to services in the community instead of a jail-based prosecution. The Community Court revolutionized community courts in the state by allowing participants to access services immediately, without waiving any of their trial rights. This allows the Community Court to be more immediately responsive to individuals in our community suffering from homelessness, drug addiction and mental health issues.

    The “Consolidated” Calendar: I created a “consolidated calendar” at Seattle Municipal Court. The court allows defendants in the criminal legal system who are already actively engaged with case workers in the community to come to court with their case worker. These case workers provide individuals with crucial support and services on the street. Because I believe that these case workers should be working in the community instead of coming to court every day, I consolidated all of these cases onto one half day calendar once per week. This allows us to meet with the case worker and take a therapeutic approach to each individual’s needs.

    Mental Health Court: I revitalized and re-structured the Seattle Municipal Mental Health Court which had been slowly dying from lack of participation before I took over 4 years ago. I worked to connect people with housing and services instead of leaving them to sit in jail waiting for a court date. I successfully negotiated with the City a revision of their sentencing recommendations which makes the Community Court option more attractive to defendants. I also hired a new Mental Health Court clinician who develops safe release plans for defendants who are willing to engage in substance abuse and mental health treatment immediately

  • The facts are that if you are a person of color, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, held in jail on bail, and receive a harsher sentence than a non-BIPOC person. I structured Community Court to directly address disproportionality towards BIPOC people and bail reform.

    First, since BIPOC people are policed more than others, they often have larger criminal histories. This has historically barred them from therapeutic courts. I therefore structured the court to allow all people into the court, regardless of criminal history, as long as their current charge met the criteria for the court and the judge approved.

    Second, we structured the court to allow approved candidates for the court to be released from custody with an individualized plan to connect them to services instead of holding them in jail on bail pending trial.

    Interpreter Services: Before I became a judge, I worked as an attorney specializing in helping non-citizen defendants navigate the criminal legal system. I also had a busy immigration practice helping to unify families and doing volunteer asylum work. These experiences gave me a deep and profound appreciation for the work of interpreters. Interpreters bridge the gap and allow people with limited English proficiency (LEPs) to have the same access to justice as native English speakers. In 2016 I volunteered to be the judicial liaison for Seattle Municipal Court interpreter services. Below is a list of our accomplishments:

    Creation of a Statewide Judicial Bench Card for Judges: When I came on the bench, I noticed that the current Interpreter Bench Card for Judges was confusing, outdated, and generally unhelpful to judges working with interpreters. I wanted to create a bench card that any judge could pick up and immediately understand what needed to happen when an interpreter came into their courtroom. I worked with my team in order to create this bench card, which we then submitted to the Statewide Interpreter Commission. The new bench card was adopted state-wide.

    You can see the new bench card here:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Interpreters/BenchCard.pdf

    Rules of Professional Conduct and Statewide Interpreter Manual: Our next project was to update the rules of professional conduct for interpreters (GR 11, 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3). We updated the rules and brought the rule up to “best practices.” We added sections for remote interpreting (made necessary by the COVID pandemic) as well as team interpreting to provide defendants with better options during long hearings and trials. You can find the new rules here:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=GR

    To supplement the new rules, we also worked on a new Handbook for Judicial Interpreters. I secured funding from the courts and matching funds from the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in order to make the project happen. The handbook is now available for all interpreters state-wide:

    https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/Interpreters/StandardsofPracticeandEthicsOnline.pdf

    Continuing Education for Interpreters: Each year, Seattle Municipal Courts Interpreter Services hosts interpreters from around the state to hone and sharpen their skills. Graduates of the program are able to interpret faster, more accurately, and for longer periods of time after they graduate from the program. It has been my honor to work with the students as a judicial liaison as well as awarding the graduates with their certificates of completion each year.

  • I have presided over the Seattle Mental Health Court for 4 years. One of the first changes I made dealt with so-called “abstain violations” – where defendants had been ordered to abstain from alcohol and/or drugs as a condition of release from custody. Before I came to the court, judges routinely jailed defendants for abstain violations under the doctrine of “swift and certain consequences.” I understand that addiction is not a choice to be punished, but a chronic medical condition to be treated. I therefore stopped jailing for abstain violations and instead connected these individuals with more intensive services.

    I also presided over the process of joining mental health court to community programs. We work with individuals who have been found not competent to proceed (due to mental illness) to refer them to services in the community instead of holding them in jail waiting for an evaluation. Once they are connected to services, we dismiss their cases.

    I also presided over hiring a new Mental Health Court Clinician who is better able to connect defendants to services through a release plan, including much needed housing and treatment services.

    But the social safety net is fractured and incomplete. We need respite beds on demand, inpatient and outpatient treatment on demand, dedicated housing with wrap around services on demand, and many, many more well-paid social services providers and medical professionals to take care of this vulnerable population.

  • Addiction is not a moral choice; it is a chronic medical condition. Judges must stop assuming that people are using drugs “because they want to.” Jail rarely helps drug addiction and can endanger a person’s life because an addict is much more likely to overdose after being held in jail for a period of time. I have instituted many “harm reduction” approaches to my programs that accept relapse as part of the journey to recovery. A person who relapses, is honest, and continues with treatment deserves to be congratulated, not punished. When defendants understand this approach, they are much more likely to seek help when they relapse instead of trying to lie to avoid punishment. I also lean heavily on medication assisted therapy such as Vivitrol, Methadone and Suboxone as sciencebased approaches to addressing addiction.

  • At its core, the misdemeanor criminal legal system should be about rehabilitation, which fundamentally means we should be connecting people to services and not preventing them from getting housing and jobs in the future because of unnecessary convictions. We need to adjust the system in order to help participants faster, such as the work I have done with Community Court.

    Judges should also be more transparent in their decision-making process. There should be an internal judicial mechanism that tracks sentencing and release decisions to ensure that judges are not exacerbating existing disproportionality towards BIPOC people. If a judge is unwilling to work toward correcting their own disproportional decision-making with assistance from other judges and outside groups, then this information should be made public.

    The Legislature should increase juror pay and mandate employer compensation for allowing their employees to serve on jury duty. Juror pay should include enough for parking, child care, and food at the very least

  • On the municipal court level, questions of stare decisis rarely come into play. Municipal court judges have enormous discretion, but when there is black letter law, we follow the law.

    However, in general, I believe that judges should view precedent as a strong guideline. They must be aware of their own biases and prejudices when making decisions based upon what they consider to be a changing society. Without this insight, judges run the risk of being immersed in their own echo-chamber and making decisions that are out of step with a changed community.

    However, at different stages in history, precedent has been proven to be fundamentally wrong. Segregation, Jim Crow, Slavery, are just a few examples.

    In many ways, the Constitution is akin to a religious text -- written vaguely enough to allow for different interpretations based upon the needs of the community it is serving. Those who would try to lock, for instance, all people into the morality of a religious text written in the Bronze Age will quickly find themselves out of step with their community.

  • Facing my own personal biases has been a passion since before taking the bench. I have tested my biases through the Harvard Implicit Association Test as well as many continuing educations that have helped me explore my own bias. I truly believe that every judge should have mandatory training every year on explicit and implicit bias so that we can become champions for eliminating bias in the criminal legal system.

    However, all the training in the world will not make me a completely unbiased person, and I have made mistakes both on and off the bench. At one point early in my judicial career, I was faced with a white woman who was on probation for her 3rd DUI. During the hearing, I was upset with her because, I assumed, she had been given every chance in life but was still driving without license and insurance. After revoking 30 days in jail on her sentence, I found out that she had been the victim of domestic violence and may have been using her car to escape further abuse. This was a possibility that had never entered my mind. I quickly re-evaluated the biases that had led me to my decision, and I amended my decision to better reflect the trauma that she was experiencing. I was glad that I avoided a bad decision in that case. However, to avoid making the same decision in the future, I now always ask “why did you do it?” “What do you need in order to make the behavior unnecessary?” Asking these simple questions helps me to dismantle my bias and rule in a more just manner.

  • During a jury trial, I had before me a Public Defender for whom I had immense professional respect . During the trial, it became clear that she and her colleague had questioned a child witness without allowing the child’s mother to be present in the room. They were convinced that the mother was influencing the child’s testimony and therefore wanted to get the child recorded without the mother present. It was clear to me that this had resulted in the attorneys themselves influencing the child’s testimony. This came out during the trial.

    Despite my respect for the lawyer, I called her out on the record for the ethical lapse. I granted the City’s motion for a mistrial and suppressed the evidence for a future trial. I removed the attorney from the case and assigned a lawyer to the child so no future abuses could happen.

  • I try to give lawyers latitude to represent their clients as they see fit, even if their approach seems to me to be contrary to the interests of their clients. I accept that there is a lot I do not know about interactions between the lawyer and the client, and that I may not recognize the strategy a lawyer is using in order to represent their client.

    However, there are times when a lawyer is so unprepared or ineffective that a record has to be made. In this case, I usually express my concerns in language such as “I am concerned that, at this point, any decision I make could be overturned based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. I am going to continue the [hearing/motion/trial] to allow counsel to better prepare.”

  • I grew up as a progressive, Arab-American in Oklahoma, arguably the most conservative state in the Union. From a very early age, I routinely interacted with people with wildly different political views. I took guidance from my father, who was a self-made man who had grown up raised by a single mother with very little money. Though he disagreed with much of the politics in Oklahoma, he loved the place and he loved the people there. He taught me that you have to stand by what you believe in, but you also have to understand why people act and think the way they do.

    Since becoming an attorney, I have dedicated my career to trying to work with people who are different from me socially, ethnically, economically and politically. This included working with Somali refugee women to help them gain asylum in the United States, working with a Women’s Shelter caring for women who were the victims of domestic violence, grass roots organizing through organizations such as the Progressive Alliance Foundation and the Arab American Community Coalition, and many others.

  • One of our most proud accomplishments at Seattle Municipal Courts is that we have eliminated all discretionary fines and fees from sentencing orders in our court. We do not force people to pay for their own supervision nor do we insist on monetary penalties for convictions. We have also worked to lower infraction costs, pulling tickets out of collections, waiving additional fines and fees, and allowing community service work for whatever fees are still outstanding. Our court is not perfect, but I feel we have gone a long way towards de-emphasizing the role of money in the criminal legal system.

    I have tried to decriminalize poverty through the Community Court program. The question we ask is “what services do you need to get out of the situation that put you here?” Crucially, we ask the defendant what they think, instead of assuming we know the right answer. Not only does this lead to better solutions, it empowers people to take control of their own recovery.

    Jail can act to further destabilize people who are already vulnerable and therefore exacerbates the “revolving door” of incarceration. Only by addressing the root cause of the behavior can we hope to break the cycle and help both the defendant and the community.

  • I have created a new Community Court as well as a “Consolidated Calendar” that allows defendants to appear with their case workers in court. I have greatly expanded our existing Mental Health Court. We gauge the effectiveness of our programs by how many connections to services we have exposed people to, as well as whether those people engaged with the services. Recidivism, while always important, must be considered very carefully. Recidivism can be very misleading if you don’t ask such questions as: what is the control group, what is the nature of any subsequent crimes, if there is more crime is it only because the person had previously been spending so much time incarcerated?

    Diversion should be the default in the misdemeanor criminal legal system, not the exception. We should expand the programs to more effectively deal with the root causes of crime instead of making the problem worse through incarceration. My opponent has stated repeatedly that she believes such programs should be scaled down and limited and that some people should be excluded from connections to available services.

  • They are not only appropriate, they are also the only way forward if the criminal legal system is going to be effective in dealing with the root causes of crime. I am proud of the programs I have created and expanded at the court, and I will continue to expand the programs once I am re-elected.

Nyjat Rose-Akins

Candidate Questionnaire Responses

  • As a Black female and immigrant, I have experienced bias when entering the courtroom as an attorney. I was never thought to be the prosecutor. Apart from my work as a prosecutor and pro tem judge, my personal experiences have also shaped my views about the nation’s system. I have observed the inequities that some have experienced merely because of their appearance. I have also observed some judges be more lenient to some because they could see themselves in the behavior committed by a young white man but they could not afford the same leniency for a young black man. These experiences inform my belief that people of color need to be involved in every facet of the criminal legal system.

  • The system must work to better ensure conditions of release, probation, or parole are feasible, and do not set up a defendant to fail. This issue is perhaps most in a municipal court judge’s circle of influence. Setting conditions of release or probation cannot be done without careful consideration of each case before the court. For example, a person addicted to substance abuse should not have a weekly drug test as part of his pretrial conditions. Unless that person successfully goes through treatment, they are almost certainly going to fail to meet that condition and be subject to additional sanctions. Similarly, an unhoused person who is ordered to day reporting may be set up to fail when they do not know where – and how far from the court- they will be from night to night. The resources available to the defendant and their ability to comply with conditions should always be considered, before they face additional justice system involvement for a violation that could have been avoided if the judge was more realistic.

    Jail Conditions:

    Jurisdictions need to work to ensure that jail serves a critical purpose – to rehabilitate the person in custody. Such rehabilitation cannot happen in a jail tormented by violence, a lack of proper medical care, and/or otherwise intolerable living conditions. The funding necessary to improve conditions to make them conducive to rehabilitation can be offset by a reduction in civil lawsuits arising from such conditions that often result in costly settlements.

    No mandatory minimum sentencing:

    Mandatory minimum sentencing must be reconsidered. These directives, which tie a judge’s hands in sentencing, are often far more significant than warranted by the offense. Further, studies indicate that mandatory minimum sentencing disproportionately affect Black and Brown defendants in both the nature of the targeted crime and discriminatory application by prosecutors. Regardless of how well-intentioned the legislation or the prosecutor is, discriminatory and overreaching effects must be corrected.

  • My own experiences as a Black female Jamaican immigrant have shaped how I interact with people in court and within broader legal situations. As a pro tem judge, I strive to always engage in active listening, with committed intention to address any situation before me that involves bias or perceptions of bias. No one should experience, or feel as though they are experiencing, court involvement influenced by their ethnic, racial, religious or gender identity, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation influences. As a Pro Tem I ask questions to litigants to demonstrate that I heard them and have considered their concerns.

    Everyone entering the courtroom will be treated with dignity and respect. Also, I am cognizant that we are surrounded by multiple cultures and languages that do not understand the judicial system. When I observe individuals in court who seem to be having difficulty, I ask that their attorney take more time to discuss their matter, or I may inquire if we need to request an interpreter to assist. It is important to me to accommodate and mitigate the impact of intersectional disadvantages people face in an unfamiliar courtroom setting. For instance, on infraction calendars many pro se litigants are confused on how to mitigate or contest a hearing. Given the confusion I explain their options and will still allow them the opportunity to take advantage of diversions, or I may set the matter for another hearing so that the defendant can obtain counsel. Also fines and fees for traffic and criminal cases can regressively impact those with the least means to pay them. If income instability is an issue, I have ordered achievable community service in lieu of fines on all criminal cases and infractions. This has allowed people to address their legal issues even if they do not have the means to pay traffic or criminal fines.

  • Yes, I have both professional and personal experiences dealing with mental illness. Washington’s mental health infrastructure is not to scale given the growing need within our communities. In a professional capacity, I have seen many individuals who are suffering from mental illness, but they are not in treatment due to lack of resources or proper funding. Competency is fluid and our mental health system is only equipped to help those who are gravely ill as opposed to helping people manage their mental illness before it becomes unmanageable. As a prosecutor who worked in mental health court, I saw firsthand the limitations of Western State Hospital. It is unfortunate that there is only one state hospital that manages mental health patients who commit criminal offenses. In all cases judges must ensure that a defendant’s rights are not violated and with the broken mental health system the court at times must release an individual for committing certain crimes due to no capacity at the state-run facility. I am also interested in partnering with other mental health providers that assist individuals to manage mental health in a communal living setting, the court must partner with organizations like Transitional Resources and other entities of its kind to leverage other mental health options outside of Western State.

  • Determinations such as diversion, pretrial release and sentencing regarding a person’s substance use disorder has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Diversion programs are great tools and options if an individual is ready to take that step to sobriety, most diversions need to be opted into. Also, it depends on the nature of the crimes committed and if the behavior was fueled by substance use disorder. Drug abstinence and testing should not be instituted if the person unquestionably cannot comply, whether as part of sentencing or pretrial release. Plea offers should be entered into with full capacity by the defendant to understand their decision.

  • The judicial system can be more open, transparent, and responsive by collaborating more with social service providers, alcohol and drug treatment programs, mental health professionals, and outreach to determine how to best support program participants. These are dynamic problems that are not easily solved; however, the court can assist in creating more robust collaborative programs that can keep better track of individuals and provide more intensive support to help curb the behavior. Also, the Court should engage with the community more by attending meetings organized by community leaders to participate in discussions that are affecting neighborhoods. In these meetings the Court can explain the Court’s role in the judicial system.

  • As a person who practices in a municipal court, I believe it is important to follow the judicial principle of stare decisis. I do believe that every case is different, and a slight factual change could make a difference in how a rule is applied. But I think it is important that judges do not legislate from the bench, they review the facts before them and follow the law. Judges can fulfill the changing understanding of justice by imposing alternative sentencing and conditions of release.

  • As a former black prosecutor who immigrated to this country, I have experienced attorneys and judges assuming that I am an intern or a public defender. I have at times received comments that "my parents should be proud," that I am an attorney in spaces where there are other white attorneys who do not get the same congratulatory praise. Those experiences and other similar micro aggressions is the reason I have a philosophy of treating everyone with dignity and respect. No one is more important because of their status, station, occupation, gender, or color. You come into my Courtroom. We are all on a level playing field. In one case where I recognized my biases I was working on a case where the defendant assaulted a former employee. The victim was an immigrant and English was her second language. I needed an interpreter for most of our communications. In addition to assaulting the victim the defendant also owed the victim back wages. I had to arrange two separate interviews with the victim, interpreter services and defense counsel. These interviews would take multiple hours to complete which prevented the victim from working that day. At first I was not aware that this was a strategy but after the second interview and the request for a third I realized that this was a mechanism to disrupt the victim’s livelihood by making the trial process extremely difficult. Although I wanted to go to trial I listened to the victim's concerns and the amount of money she had foregone or had to spend to participate in the criminal legal system thus far. As an immigrant, I was emotional about how difficult this process was for an immigrant victim who was suffering from income instability and I wanted to take it to trial. But trial would have also cost the victim a lot more time and money than she was able to afford. The case was settled and the victim received some restitution but I did not feel as if there was adequate justice but I listened to the victim’s need to resolve the case.

  • I was working on an issue for a client and my supervisor did not agree with the advice I planned to give. I reviewed extensive case law inside and outside of the current jurisdiction to ensure I was well versed in the issue and could explain the rationale behind my advice. My supervisor was not as knowledgeable on the subject matter and was more focused on the political aspects of the advice rather than on our role as legal advisors. The advice suggested by my supervisor would have exposed our client to a lot more unnecessary risk and could also violate some constitutional protections. The first thing I did was push back against my supervisor on his proposed advice. I informed him that I would check with a few other senior attorneys to get their input on the issue. After following up with a few attorneys, I scheduled a meeting with my supervisor and the other attorneys to discuss the matter as a group. The other attorneys agreed with my assessment and confirmed that my supervisor’s advice was in contradiction to current case law. Although my supervisor did not ultimately agree, he did back down and allowed me to advise the client’s as I saw fit based on my research.

  • This is a delicate situation, the proper handling of which will depend on the circumstances. I may consider halting the proceedings and very tactfully call both attorneys into chambers to discuss whether either has any concerns moving forward with the hearing. Sometimes people have bad days and are not presenting their true selves. Maintaining a good relationship with both defense and prosecutor supervisors may also make possible a conversation about reassigning someone to the case. Simply continuing the hearing may be sufficient. In any case, it is critical that the judge determine if any irreparable harm or prejudice has been suffered as a result and put such an opinion on the record to be considered in future proceedings if necessary.

  • Building relationships and collaborating is a skill that I find most important in working with any community. Communities want to feel heard and the best way to do that is to show up and listen. Showing up does not only happen when there is a problem but also checking in when things are good. Every day I work and collaborate with people who are socially, ethically, and politically different. We are not all going to agree all the time, but what is most important is that we respect each other’s opinion and give people an opportunity to be heard. One example of me building relationships for better collaboration involved a local business run by a BIPOC immigrant and the surrounding predominantly white community. I was working with a BIPOC immigrant owned restaurant/bar that had a lengthy violation history under its previous owner. The residential community was not supportive of the restaurant/bar due to multiple public safety issues and noise complaints that grew over the years under the previous owner. Because the business model was similar the community assumed they would continue to be negatively impacted by poor business management. I met with the community to understand their concerns and I also met with the new business owners to explain the community's concerns. After multiple meetings I assisted the community in creating a plan to work with the business owners that would be mutually acceptable to both parties. I found that it was important for each side to have an opportunity to be heard and then try to build some common ground where both groups could co-exist and have an open line of communication to work through issues.

  • Judges must assess the facts and law of every case that comes before them. I think the best judges review prior cases of each individual to determine the best alternative. In the past, the criminal justice used a blunt tool to address criminal violations, jail, now courts in Seattle are open to trying diversion and alternative courts to better address criminal behavior. Alternative programs and diversions are important tools for the court because it connects individuals with social service providers and other services that can assist people while managing housing and income instability to change their lives. Courts can mitigate the cycle of the revolving door by building relationships with profits and housing providers to assist with placing defendants straight into housing or shelter upon release from jail or as a condition of their sentence. An individual who is unhoused or not employed still does not have a license to commit crime; however, the Court can seek to understand and assess people individually to determine what services and programs are appropriate.

  • I believe Community Court could be a great opportunity for some individuals who are committing lower level crimes. When I was involved in Community Court I saw the sense of accomplishment and pride people had when they completed all the conditions of their community court obligations. I recall one participant telling the Court that they had never finished anything in their life until they completed their Community Court conditions. I think the measure of an effective diversion program is participation, accountability, and progress. Individuals who are committing lower level crimes who enter diversion programs need assistance, they may be battling alcohol/drug addiction, mental health, and lack of income. But if participants are showing up to court with a willingness to engage and inform the court what is happening I think that is a good start, also not reoffending while engaged in the program is also a good sign that individuals are taking their court obligations seriously. Perfection is not required, but honesty and a willingness to participate is required. I think alternative and diversion programs are important and I would expand by tapping into nonprofit and government agencies to provide more funding to better serve this population. When elected, I plan to work collaboratively with other entities to best leverage the current ecosystem and to build upon it to better serve the individuals who are involved in the criminal legal system.

  • Especially in misdemeanor courts, the above-named approaches are quite often appropriate and beneficial to both the defendant and, in some cases, the victim of crime. Some victims may truly appreciate an apology or knowing that the defendant’s underlying issues were addressed. Seattleites are kind and compassionate, and victims may be hesitant to involve themselves in the system if they believe the defendant will not have a meaningful opportunity to get help for underlying issues. For the defendant, diversion courts can help resolve those underlying issues, so long as the Court stays engaged and holds the participant accountable to reasonable benchmarks.

    However, the circumstances of each crime vary, and defendants vary. A defendant’s prior success or failures in alternative courts must be considered when evaluating how appropriate engagement with those courts may be.