With California jails and prisons still struggling with finding a reform for non-violent drug offenders the states recidivism rates continue to reach unprecedented numbers. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteen-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This has been a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse related issues instead of providing a way for treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policies regarding criminal justice interventions that address drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services as a diversion to incarceration. The Diversion-to-Treatment Law that was created in California is called Proposition 36 also known as the “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000”. This literature review will briefly describe various themes related to substance abuse treatment and Proposition 36. These themes are: a description of proposition-36, what population the services have been directed to, goals of the initiative, what some of the overall success rates are and how this offender diversion program has impacted the California economy.
At the same time that legislatures were ratcheting up sentences for drug possession offenses and funding more and more prisons, millions of Americans lacked access to drug and alcohol treatment, psychiatric care, housing and other crucial services (Appel et al. 2004). In November of 2000 Proposition 36 was passed by a California voting majority by a margin of 61% with $120 million dollars available for treatment service funding over a f...
... middle of paper ...
..., Urada, D., & Yang, J. (2011). Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(2), 124-134. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.09.001
Klein, D., Miller, R. E., Noble, A., & Speiglman, R. (2004). Incorporating a Public Health Approach in Drug Law: Lessons from Local Expansion of Treatment Capacity and Access under California's Proposition 36. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 723-757. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00329.x
Worrall, J. L., Hiromoto, S., Merritt, N., Du, D., Jacobson, J. O., & Iguchi, M. Y. (2009). Crime trends and the effect of mandated drug treatment: Evidence from California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 109-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.010
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 you might already be aware there is a ballot initiative on this upcoming November’s election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug offenders. If Proposition 36 passes, California could become number one for its treatment for drug offenders. The measure also provides state funds to counties to operate the drug treatment programs. Additionally, studies have shown that drug treatment is a far more effective than prison in reducing future criminal activity. Robert Roseman, a 51-year-old heroin addict from Sacramento says, “I was always able to get drugs in prison…all you’re going to learn in prison is to do crime better.”
The BCDTC experienced a great achievement as the program is reduced criminal offending in a population of drug-addicted chronic offenders. What is more? The program appears to have been successful at establishing a credible threat of future punishment for the drug court clients, and sanctions for noncompliance. Gottfredson and Exum Claim that “BCDTC received harsher sentences as a result of their initial arrest than did the control study participants, both in terms of incarceration and probation sentences” (2002). Both circuit and district court especially the circuit court are found to be successful at imposing a threat of future incarceration. On the other side of the coin, the Program fails to differentiate between in-program recidivism and post-program recidivism. Post program client’s behavior might be different from client behavior during intensive supervision and this might cause an overlap in behavior. Reducing criminal activity is clearly a
Sasha Abramsky, writing in the liberal magazine, the Nation, uses California as an example in which getting rid of the harsh drug policies would be a huge benefit to the economy. In the article titled “The War Against the ‘War on Drugs,’” Abramsky finds a correlation between the drug policies and incarceration rates. Abramsky writes about how some of the state’s political figures are finding that the war on drugs is “responsible for the spike in prison populations over the past thirty years” and they agree that the California’s drug policies “are not financially viable and no longer command majority support among the voting public” (18). Abramsky then goes on to discuss in the article how liberal politicians, Betty Yee and Tom Ammiano, are pushing for a bill to change the drug laws and legalize marijuana. Yee wants to excise “fees on business owners applying for marijuana licenses, impose an excise tax on sellers and charge buyers a sales tax” and if that is done the right way, she believes that the state could gain “about $1.3 billion a year”
The biggest question people ask is if the “war on drugs” was successful. According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), “The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences.” The best way to measure the effectiveness of the “war on drugs” is to focus on these basic questions; Is drug use down? Is crime down? and Are drugs less available? Since 1988, drug use by individuals ages 12 and over has remained stable according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). The number of individuals reporting any drug use has increased by approximately 7 million and the number of those who reported drug use in previous months or previous years has remained unchanged. The Organization Monitoring the Future studies drug use, access to drugs, and perspectives towards drugs of junior and senior high school students nationwide. Results of a study conducted in 2005 showed a minor decline in substance abuse by older teens, but drug use among eighth graders stopped remained the same. However, the changes were not statistically significant and ultimately there was no reduction in substance abuse among young students. Crime in the United States has decreased significantly since 1993, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. On the other hand,
To begin, drug courts were established in Miami in 1989 during the “war on crime” era. According to Cooper (2003), “the immediate goals of the drug court were to reduce the recidivism rate of these defendants while they were awaiting disposition of their cases, reduce the failure to appear at trial rate, and provide at least some level of treatment services” (p. 1672). During the “war on crime” era, criminal rates were escalating and courts were overflowing with case loads and the drug court was implemented in order to find another way to help solve the drug problems with select offenders. Additionally, “the primary purpose of the Miami drug court was, therefore, not therapeutic, although it clearly had therapeutic elements, but, rather to promote public safety and more effective judicial supervision of defendants while awaiting trial” (Cooper, 2003, p. 1672). Providing a safe sanction for offenders as well as the community was an efficient solution to control the caseloads of drug offenders and ensure the safety of the community.
One policy one could examine to see its implications on incarceration rates in the United States is the “War on Drugs.” This war has taken place since the Nixon administration in the 1970s, and aims to eliminate the possession, importation, and solicitation of illegal substances. This war has multiple fronts in which people are currently fighting, but the domestic theatre of war is a culprit for this rise of incarceration rates. Bobo and Thompson examined this phenomenon and found, “rapid increase in incarceration rates can be traced to the "War on Drugs" and associated sentencing practices” (451). The “War on Drugs” can be seen taking place in predominately urban impoverished African-American communities. As a result, more African-Americans are being arrested for drug crimes, whether they be petty possession misdemeanor crimes or more serious felony solicitation of illegal substance crimes. Further, since these areas are more impoverished, individuals will look for other ways in order to generate income in order to support themselves and their
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
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
To properly measure the success of the Senate Bill 618 of San Diego, one must look at the changes that impacted participants in a positive way. The success of each individual varied based on their involvement in the program and taking advantage of all the resources available to them. The program provided services such as job placement and secure housing, which for someone being released can be a challenging experience. The outcome measure of the program is the rate of recidivism among the participants in the program. Also, the rate of successful completion of the parole condition is another way of outcome measures by reducing recidivism and set them for success. The reason the program was tremendously successful in reducing recidivism, was simply the fact that realistic goals were set. Furthermore, a follow-up with the support from the resources available through the program plays a role in the overall success of the program. According to the evaluation findings, fewer parolees were returned to prison and they abided by the limitation of their parole. The Senate Bill 618 was also more cost effective in comparison to traditional California correctional program as much as eight thousand dollars in savings. The Senate Bill 618 program does not need any improvement since it showed significant recidivism reduction and most importantly provided parolees with tools
The purpose of this paper is to inform about effect the drug treatment programs in prison are and who they affect the most. The programs are meant to for re-offenders with an extensive drug record. Some of the questions the researchers asked was how well do the programs work for the inmates, who does it effect, and does different drugs affect the programs. In 2002 there was 250 prison based drug treatment programs in 40 states. In 2004 the number went up to 290 treatment programs in 44 states. (Farebee et al. 1999) The main focus of the programs are to help inmates so they do not reoffend once released from prison. Drug treatment programs help the different inmates by using different programs.
Drug arrests occur too often and are taking up a majority of general arrests in America. “Drug arrests were the single largest category of arrests, accounting for more than 10% of all arrests in the country” (A drug, 2015). One out of ten of every arrest in the United States of America is a drug arrest. This over focus on drug arrests needs to stop as it is taking focus off of more damaging violent crimes. Overall drug arrests are up 8.3% from a decade ago” (A drug, 2015). Drug crimes are increasing because of the American government increased focus on drug crimes, despite the fact that it is not helping the problem. Even though drug arrests are going up, drug use in the United States of America is “... plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier,
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...
Right now in the United States there are over 2 million people incarcerated in the country’s prisons and jails. Out of this population about one-quarter of these inmates have been convicted of a drug offense. With drug offense arrests increasing nationwide and the prison population increasing there is an alternative to incarceration has been used over the past two decades in many cities across the country. This alternative is in the form of local drug courts that are now found in most major cities in the United States. A drug court is a specialized court in which the judge, prosecutor, public defender or private attorney, probation officers, and treatment counselors work together to help chemically dependent offenders obtain needed treatment and rehabilitation in an attempt to break the cycle of addiction and further criminal offenses. Some argue that treatment rather than incarceration is a waste of time and valuable resources that could be used elsewhere. Research however has shown that court ordered treatment is the best option for drug offenders. Treatments through drug court has proven to be less expensive than incarceration and has also been shown to reduce crime and provide a lower relapse and re-arrest rate for offenders that are placed in drug courts as opposed to those that are not.
Gray, Judge James P. Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About