Essay On Drug Courts

The complex issues of dealing with offenders in the criminal justice system has been a point of ongoing controversy, particularly in the arena of sentencing. In one camp there are those who believe offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law, while others advocate a more rehabilitative approach. The balancing act of max punishment for crimes committed, and rehabilitating the offender for reintegration into society has produced varying philosophies. With the emanation of drug-induced crimes over the past few decades, the concept of drug treatment courts has emerged. The premise of these courts is to offer a “treatment based alternative to prison,” which consist of intensive treatment services, random drug testing, incentives

Adele Harrell (2003) reaction essay, Judging drug courts: Balancing the evidence, acknowledges the growing popularity of drug courts, but cautions that the research on the impact on public safety is underwhelming. Harrell states that the effectiveness of drug courts in Gottfredson et al. (2003) research is tempered by the fact that two-thirds of the drug court participants were rearrested within two years (albeit lower than the rearrests rates of the control group), but noted that figure is troublesome. Harrell’s essay also introduces other facets of drug courts to be researched in an effort to understand inconsistences in drug court practices from jurisdictions across the country. In particular, Harrell notes that eligibility, treatment availability, and court practices vary significantly from one drug court to the next. He brings light to the possible correlation between drug court practices and recidivism, and the importance of understanding which court practices contribute positively toward successful program