Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Merits of drug courts
Criminal justice system and prescription drug abuse
The role of drug courts in changing the problem of drug abuse
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Merits of drug courts
What is Drug Court? According to Siegel (2013), drug courts are courts designed for non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems who require integrated sanctions and services such as mandatory drug testing, substance abuse treatment, supervised release, and parole. These courts are designed to help reduce housing nonviolent offenders with violent inmates. Drug courts work on a non-adversarial, coact approach. How were drug courts established? Drug courts were implemented by Judge Gerald Wetherington in Miami’s Eleventh Judicial Circuit and Judge Herbert Klein (Siegel, 2013). When both of these judges suggested “drug court” for substance abusers, no one really believed they would work. In order to properly determine whether or not it drug courts would be worth they were first experimented in Australia, Britain, and Iceland (Siegel, 2013). Since the initial experimentation in other continent’s, we have established and are currently operating more than two-thousand drug courts amongst the United States. What do drug courts offer, that jails do not? Drug courts help spawn savings for our justice system, they help diminish recidivism, but most importantly, it helps substance abuse offenders reintegrate back into the community. Drug courts ameliorate’s public safety, while providing substance abusers the potential to become functional members of society. Although drug courts are a bit more lenient with substance abusers, it does not mean they get a “free-pass.” Those who are mandated by a drug court official to enroll in a drug free program must comply with the requirements, otherwise they will be facing jail time. According to Siegel (2013), some of the requirements include, but are not limited to: (a) mandatory periodic te... ... middle of paper ... ...ng is possible. On many occasions, I have witnessed first hand how drug court saved someone’s life. The system has been implemented to benefit the abuser and their families. This program helps prevent future drug usage by implanting a relapse program free of charge. These courts are designed to help reduce housing nonviolent offenders with violent inmates. Drug courts work on a non-adversarial, coact approach. The implementation of drug courts has the right intentions. They were put in place to help change a person’s life, if and when, they are willing to help themselves. “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The nation 's first drug court was established in Florida in 1989, and there are now more than 2,500 operating nationwide” (Rankinf and Teegardin). From that moment in 1989, America’s judicial system decided to re-evaluate how the courts had been approaching drug addiction and crime. Instead
It ties the hands of judges, hurts legitimate treatment, and effectively decriminalizes heroin, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. Drug courts hold drug abusers accountable with regular drug testing and consequences for failing treatment— accountability not found in Proposition 36.” Drug testing is a part of court-supervised drug treatment everywhere in California today, and it will continue to be under Proposition 36. There are no legal barriers to drug testing. Judges can and will order appropriate levels of testing of offenders placed in treatment under the initiative's system; Proposition 36 simply does not tie judges' hands by prescribing a one-size-fits-all regimen for all offenders.
Jones, C. (2009). Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences. The John Howard Society of Canada.
Once these individuals in rehab serve there sentence the majority of them, won’t look straight to the next opportunity to get high, but the next opportunity for a better future after being encouraged in rehab to accomplish something in life, compared to someone’s attitude coming out of prison. One story involved a man named Richard with his wife Marcia. She was an addict who was often jailed for it, but Anthony believed like many others that “addiction can be overcome with proper help. He believed that the solution was to get her into a mental hospital [and] get her whatever she needs – Xanax, morphine, to get her chemical imbalance right. Show her some respect. (114)” Give her some working skills, so once she gets out she is capable of being successful but instead she kept getting “kicked down the steps” by the criminal justice system. The jailing and torture of addicts is routine to people serving cases for drug related offenses, who are often not built to endure prison, let alone jail. “The Justice Department estimates that 216,000 people are raped in these prisons every year. (This is the number of rapes, not the number of rapes – that is much higher.) (109)” This is ultimately shows the simple fact that many people are not built to endure
There was mostly females in the family drug court, and most of the cases involving drugs in Sherman deals with methamphetamine. The judge has a great deal of control, primarily because he is on a payroll. Graduations in this drug court are generally a big deal and are often elaborate, with the use of plaques to symbolize their achievement. As far as Sanctions are concerned, they vary case to case, however, they typically involve writing a letter or community service.
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
I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to slamming people in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related--crime that would largely disappear if the massive profits brought on by drug criminalization were eliminated. You can reduce drug usage more efficiently, and at a lower cost, through treatment than through law enforcement.
“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Judiciary Branch of the United States government is responsible for interpreting the law. Those involved with this branch determine the meaning of the laws and decide what to do with those who break them. Because of a drug movement that took place through the 1980s, the courts have severely punished those who break laws associated to drugs; Congress is now trying to step in to change the way the Judiciary Branch is forced to punish such criminals. Congress has been busy the past couple of years evaluating the proper sentencing of those convicted of drug crimes. Many men and women of Congress are joining forces in an attempt to come up with a solution to propose as an amendment. Our elected leaders believe the need for the reform of drug crimes is due because of the number of cases and number of years those convicted are spending in prisons. Because of the drug wars that took place in the United States, the minimum sentence has been set so high today. Drug reform is needed in the United States, and those convicted of drug crimes with improper sentences need to have their sentence reduced. 1
These courts began in the 1990s to better rehabilitate offenders with specific needs that could not be efficiently supported within the regular judicial system. Problem-Solving court’s main focus is to find an outcome that will best suit the needs of the offender, victim and community. Even though problem solving courts are still relatively new, they seem to have a beneficial outcome for everyone involved. There are approximately 1,272 problem-solving courts within the United States; from drug courts to veteran’s court, more judicial systems are implementing these courts within their own boundaries.
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
The criminal justice system treats all forms of serious crimes in an unforgiving manner. If the offenders commit a crime while under the influence of drugs, they are likely to be put in prison for a longer period of time rather than someone who committed the same kind of crime but was not under the influence of drugs (Taylor, 2008). With that said there are many causes of drug related crimes. Usually when there is a drug related crime it tends to be more serious in terms of damage done than non related ones. It is important to further explore crimes that are drug related in order to see the root causes.
Each year the U.S spends billions of dollars to keep federal inmates behind bars. Nearly half of these federal inmates are convicted of drug abuse, and a vast majority of the ones convicted are low-level nonviolent criminals. Keeping these low-level criminals in jail is expensive, and it’s not very helpful because many of them end up going back to jail with higher drug charges. We as a society need to recognize that addiction is worthy of medical help and not just a crime that deserves punishment. Hey, I’m tori smith and today I 'm going to discuss the benefits of using a rehab facility instead of jail for these criminals.
And they rely on the discrimination and skill of a judge.The numerous studies indicate these courts significantly reduce crime and drug use. About half the participants in adult drug court finish the program, although the number varies widely from court to court, often depending on the skill of the judge. Federal judges are now beginning to create programs modeled on the state drug courts that allow for similar alternatives to incarceration for low level drug crimes, according to Dave
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.