The Queensland Drug Court system (CDP) aims at diverting offenders accused of minor drug offences from the criminal justice system (Department of Justice and Attorney-General, 2012). The program aims to rehabilitate drug offenders from abusing substances and conducting in related criminal activity by providing court enforced rehabilitation services (Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet, 2015). The Queensland Drug Court system offers offenders the chance to earn themselves bail if they agree to get help, or face jail time and serious fines if they refuse (Emma Sykes 2013). Considering this aim it is unfortunate to observe that minor drug offences have continued to rise annually since 2009 (Queensland Police Services, 2015). In theory a court …show more content…
The Queensland Drug Court system has had little effect on the offending behavior of those who had their program terminated. The Queensland Drug Court system has one main legislation which is the Drug Rehabilitation Act (Court Diversion) Act 2000. (THE QUEENSLAND DRUG COURT). The legislation states that in order to be eligible for the drug court you must be charged with a “relevant offence”, Be an “eligible person”, Plead guilty, be likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, not be suffering any mental condition and Reside in a specified postcode location. As a result, if these requirements are not meet they will be forced to be incarcerated or pay hefty …show more content…
The Queensland Drug Court system (Drug Courts: An Effective…) Have also absorbed scarce resources that could have been better spent to treat and supervise those with more serious offenses or to bolster demonstrated health approaches, such as community-based treatment. The Queensland government is paying for The Queensland Drug Court system that aren’t even effective, this in turn wastes thousands of dollars that could be better spent. (Because methamphetamine field for supervising officers, they are among the highest risk offenders and require intensive supervision. This is also costing the government money, when it comes to supervising drug users, plus the added strain on the police force. These resources can be better allocated to areas within the community that are in need of more police patrols or more government funding. The government isn’t the only ones paying for it, the taxpayers also pay around 445,965 million dollars a year (TAXATION REVENUE KEY FIGURES). Each patient costs around $4,700 per patient (National institute on drug abuse) and thousands of patients are submitted into this treatment a year, which is costing more money than it is helping drug users. (the Queensland Drug Court…) In Australia alone 59% percent of those who graduated from a drug court had been reconvicted of a new offence within two years, that’s more than half of the graduates. This shows that what we are
After viewing the documentary: America's War on Drugs - The Prison Industrial Complex, it is clear that the Criminal Justice System is in desperate need of reconstruction and repair with policies such as the mandatory minimum sentencing act which has proven to be unsuccessful and unjust in its efforts to deter 'criminals from committing illegal acts' as seen with the increase of incarcerations of the American people and the devastating effect it has had on those in prison and the family members of those incarcerated.
Drug court is between one to two years in duration, depending on which county the program is located in and how willing the participant is to implement the program into their daily lives. The philosophy is, “keep individuals in treatment long enough for it to work, while supervising them closely” (nadcp.org). Participants are held accountable for every action they have, whether positive or negative. Meaning, they are “rewarded for doing well or sanctioned when they do not live up to their obligations” (nadcp.org). Sanctions can range anywhere from community service, earlier curfew restrictions, a treatment facility, and even up to a weekend or months in jail, depending on the severity of the
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.”
Drug court programs are able to bring many interveners (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, substance abuse treatment specialists, probation officers, law enforcement and correctional personnel, educational and vocational experts, community leaders and others) to the forefront for the offender leading them to having to deal with his or her substance abuse problem. The studies have found that drug courts offer closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision and that “drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug
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
Drug and substance abuse is a problem that since time immemorial continues to affect billions of people, families, and communities across the world. Apart from the health risks posed to individuals, drug abuse has dire socio-economic effects as it has huge financial and social burdens on the society. Many families are destroyed, economies ruined while communities are persecuted. Drug abuse also jeopardises the safety of the entire society and poses unwarranted demands on the education system, the law and the social service system and Canada is no exception to this problem. According to the Canadian Centre on Drug Abuse, the Canadian government spends up to 14 million dollar every year on rehabilitation and treatment programmes (2). The cost of the problem is estimated to amount to about 1,267 dollars per individual in Canada in terms of heath provision, law enforcement and loss of productivity, without including personal costs. This paper will address the harm reduction approach to addressing the problem of drug addiction in Canada.
This essay intends to address the role that state agencies, both within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and more broadly the institutions of education, employment and health, play in supporting and implementing diversionary programs for offenders with mental health problems. Mental health is clearly one of the most critical issues facing the Australian and New South Wales (NSW) CJS with research indicating that offenders with mental health problems constitute the majority of those within the prison system. The current strategies for diversion will be critically evaluated in order to determine their effectiveness with regard to the delivery and production of justice, cultural sensitivity for Indigenous Australians will also be considered. The social construction of mental illness and the associated process of stigmatisation of this particular group will be explored in conjunction to explain why society still fails to prevent the mass entry of people with mental health issues into the traditional CJS.
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
These two articles clearly display to the reader the pitfalls mandatory minimums sentences can have in the context of certain drug offenses. Illustrating the restrictions mandatory minimums place on a judge’s ability to use their experience and knowledge to assert the right type of punishment over those convicted of crimes. , “Canadians lose confidence in the criminal justice system when the sentence doesn’t fit the crime,” – Michael Cooper (Harris, 2016). This reformation of the courts showed the public that fairness is the focus of the justice system and not just deterrence and or
In the juvenile drug court a docket with selected delinquency cases are referred to a designated judge. These youth have been identified for having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs. The juvenile drug court judge maintains close oversight of each case through frequent court report updates through the probation officer and the therapist. The judge both services as the team leader and serve as an integral part of a team that comprises representatives from treatment, juvenile justice, social services, school and vocational training programs, law enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. This team determines how to address the problems of substance abuse and his or her family, which lead the youth into contact with the justice system (Cooper, 1998).
In 1989, a Republican county executive of Mercer County, N.J., estimated that it would cost approximately one billion dollars to build the jail space required to house all the drug users in Trenton alone (Roffman 1982). All of this money could be spent on things of greater importance. Not only has the drug problem increased, but the drug related problems are on the rise. Drug abuse is a killer worldwide. Some are born addicts (crack babies), while others develop addictions later in life.
I believe drug courts are the most fair and effective way to deal with drug users. They may have their cons, but without these new program’s, we wont see an improvement for the use of drugs around our area. I believe the people putting these program’s together really want to see a change in not only our county, but other counties as well. Even helping a minor group of people, can still have an impact.
The criminal justice system we employ today is designed to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person through the use of a jury and if found to be guilty determine a fair punishment or appropriate rehabilitation process (Burgess, Regehr & Roberts 2013). However making these continual changes has caused the justice system to become increasingly more complicated and with that seemingly less able to provide justice to the victims, community and also the offenders (Ochoa 2013). In only a short amount of time legal assistance has become very hard to access and many have simply thought it not worth the trouble to gain compensation for the harm they have felt, leaving many offenders without consequences to face for their actions (Burgess, Regehr & Roberts 2013). Without these consequences a large number of offenders are very likely to reoffend causing disruption to the community.
In the United States, the amount of arrests for Drug possession, and sales have steadily increased. In 2002 around 1.5 million people were incarcerated for drug related crimes. According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “In 2007 the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports estimated that there were about 1,841,200 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States.” (BJS) Based on these statistics, it is obvious that the number of people being put in jail for these crimes, is not going down. This can be attributed to the fact that when these people are released, they go right back onto drugs. In a study done by Temple university it was found that, “Nearly half of all state prisoners
Payne, J. (2007). Recidivism in Australia (p.11). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2007. Retrieved from