Substance abuse is a grim issue that affects the Canadian inmate population; it can be defined as overindulgence in or dependence on an addictive substance, especially alcohol or drugs. Within Canada, 80% of offenders entering the federal prison system are identified as having a substance abuse problem; this goes beyond mere indication of tougher drug legislation, it uncovers further discrepancy. Due to the immense majority of offenders affected by this complex mental illness, in addition to varied levels of individual cognitive ability. Consequently conventional abstinence-based treatment methods may not benefit all offenders. Untreated, this dynamic risk factor precursor’s future offending, as a study reveals dependency on illegal drugs is the single most serious risk for repeated offending. It has been established substance control is a far more feasible short term goal than outright eradication. With this ideology, the premise of one’s analysis will be on substance abuse control methodologies, gauging effectiveness and overall success in achieving its purpose. The harm reduction model the most prevalent ideology within the large spectrum of substance control methods, it is defined by the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction as any program or policy designed to reduce drug-related harm without requiring the cessation of drug use. In essence instead of adhering to the conventional eradication style practices aforementioned, this style focuses on helping the offender cope with their mental illness. This not only can encourage offenders to take active participation within their treatment, but makes them the directors of their own rehabilitation using their own will power to gauge treatment. Although the harm reduct... ... middle of paper ... ...aken by users, the statistics in favor of harm reduction seem irrelevant as these individuals spend the same amount of hospital days per person as several people on average. With such statistical information it is unsurprising that governments have not fully embraced the harm reduction concept, with some countries reverting back to older methods. For instance, Canada is on the verge of closing the dangerous In-site injection facility in Vancouver and reallocating funds to traditional inpatient treatment--real treatment that promotes eventual abstinence. One can conclude that the effectiveness of harm reduction is a very questionable topic as not only does it aid in offender substance abuse, but at what cost. The topic of harm reduction provokes a deeper thought, what happened to prevention methods and what about them is not working?
Bruce K. Alexander’s essay “Reframing Canada’s ‘Drug Problem’” is about shifting the focus from intervention to prevention. Alexander explains that in Canada there have been three major waves of drug intervention: “Criminal prosecution and intensive anti-drug” (225), “medicinal and psychological treatment” (225), and the ‘“harm reduction’ techniques” (225) being the most resent. The “’harm reduction’” (225) consisted of: clean injectable heroin, clean needles, methadone, and housing for addicts. Although each of the methods is devoted and knowledgeable, they have done little to decrease the deaths or suppress the unhappiness. While clean heroin did work well few addicts quit using and many found
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
Within our society, there is a gleaming stigma against the drug addicted. We have been taught to believe that if someone uses drugs and commits a crime they should be locked away and shunned for their lifetime. Their past continues to haunt them, even if they have changed their old addictive ways. Everyone deserves a second chance at life, so why do we outcast someone who struggles with this horrible disease? Drug addiction and crime can destroy lives and rip apart families. Drug courts give individuals an opportunity to repair the wreckage of their past and mend what was once lost. Throughout this paper, I will demonstrate why drug courts are more beneficial to an addict than lengthy prison sentences.
As some criminologists have debated, the methods and approaches to crime control have failed miserably. They are of the opinion that the criminal justice system fails in achieving its aims in rehabilitating criminal offenders. For example, a report made in the U.K claimed that 58 per cent of the prisoners released in 1997 were convicted of another crime (SEU, 2000). Some argue that it seems for the criminal justice system there is only one answer to crime control, a prison sentence. Nevertheless, some question how accurate this method is for some crimes in society. That is to say, that for certain crimes, taking the consumption of marijuana as an example, a prison sentence is not the solution, rehabilitating individuals should be the main priority and in certain cases if not the only
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
Alexander explains that in Canada there has been three major waves of drug intervention, the ‘“harm reduction’ techniques” (225) being the most resent consisted of: clean injectable heroin, clean needles, methadone, and housing. Although, each of the methods are devoted and knowledgeable they have done little to decreased the deaths or supress the unhappiness. While clean heroin did work well few addicts quit using and many found the conditions of reserving the drugs to be repulsive. Yet another method is legalization which is nothing new and will do little to help.
MacMaster, S. (2004). Harm reduction: a new perspective on substance abuse services. Social Work, 49(3), 356-63. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2055/docview/215270642/fulltext?accountid=7113
There are many contributing factors and political issues that address substance abuse. Throughout the years, many researchers have designed many interventions and social policies designed to treat people who have used, abused, and became addicted to substances. Today, there are many new studies that address substance abuse at the individual, group, family, and community or policy levels. Today, there are many services that are effective for decreasing recidivism in youth who have completed a substance abuse program. A substance abuse treatment program or center is the best way to treat individuals who have abused substances.
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
Inciardi, Dr. James A., A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Avialable: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/contdrug.txt
Drug violators are a major cause of extreme overcrowding in US prisons. In 1992, 59,000 inmates were added to make a record setting 833,600 inmates nationwide (Rosenthal 1996). A high percentage of these prisoners were serving time because of drug related incid...
Across the United States and throughout the world there is an epidemic of epic proportion involving drug addiction. Here in North Carolina the majority of the Department of Corrections inmate population is known to have substance abuse problems. (Price, 62) Along with this epidemic is the growing problem of prison overcrowding. There is a correlation between the two. Many of today’s correctional facilities house inmates that have committed drug related crimes or crimes that they committed while under the influence. There is a solution that would help society and lessen the overcrowding of the penal system. The solution is to help those that are committing crimes because of an addiction disorder. There is viable evidence that this solution works such as statistics, causes of addiction and its ability to be treated, and studies that have been done with the focus on recidivism of recovering addicts. There is also the matter of the cost effectiveness of treatment versus incarceration. Of course there are opponents that make valid argument against treatment in lieu of incarceration. The argument against includes the fact that relapse can and often does happen to the addicted individual. In many segments of society providing treatment to stigmatized individuals is frowned upon.
Drug addiction and misuse amongst the imprisoned populaces is a plain realism that immensely complicates the job of rehabilitating lawbreakers. Approximations of severe drug contribution amongst reprobates’ points to the crucial need for operative interventions and accessible pointers show drug use amongst the people arrested by the police to be at prevalent levels. Throughout the 1970s, it was pointed out by F. M. Tims in Drug Abuse Treatment in Prisons, that only about half the Nation’s State prisons offered drug abuse treatment and only about one-quarter of all jails in the United States had any provision for treatment. I think that there are a copious amount of reasons to present drug abuse treatment to the prison populaces. First, of
Substance abuse complicates almost every aspect of care for the person with a mental disorder. When drugs enter the brain, they can interrupt the work and actually change how the brain performs its jobs; these changes are what lead to compulsive drug use. Drug abuse plays a major role when concerning mental health. It is very difficult for these individuals to engage in treatment. Diagnosis for a treatment is difficult because it takes time to disengage the interacting effects of substance abuse and the mental illness. It may also be difficult for substance abusers to be accommodated at home and it may not be tolerated in the community of residents of rehabilitation programs. The author states, that they end up losing their support systems and suffer frequent relapses and hospitalizations (Agnes B. Hatfield, 1993).
The link between drug use and crime is not a new one. For more than twenty years, both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice have funded many studies to try to better understand the connection. One such study was done in Baltimore on heroin users. This study found high rates of criminality among users during periods of active drug use, and much lower rates during periods of nonuse (Ball et al. 1983, pp.119-142). A large number of people who abuse drugs come into contact with the criminal justice system when they are sent to jail or to other correctional facilities. The criminal justice system is flooded with substance abusers. The need for expanding drug abuse treatment for this group of people was recognized in the Crime Act of 1994, which for the first time provided substantial resources for federal and state jurisdictions. In this paper, I will argue that using therapeutic communities in prisons will reduce the recidivism rates among people who have been released from prison. I am going to use the general theory of crime, which is based on self-control, to help rationalize using federal tax dollars to fund these therapeutic communities in prisons. I feel that if we teach these prisoners some self-control and alternative lifestyles that we can keep them from reentering the prisons once they get out. I am also going to describe some of today’s programs that have proven to be very effective. Gottfredson and Hirschi developed the general theory of crime.