Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
merits of drug courts
merits of drug courts
impact of drugs on the criminal justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: merits of drug courts
Drug courts were first established in Miami in 1989 and have continued to grow today. Over the past twenty-four years, drug courts have provided a treatment-orientated approach to help defendants with drug-related crimes. The constant interaction of the drug court provides the needed structure for participants to maintain their involvement in the program. Understanding the overall goals of the drug court and the outcomes of participants in the drug court program are the key factors in measuring the success of the drug courts. 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. After the development of the drug court in Miami, rising drug crimes were able to be more controlled as well as getting the drug offenders supervision and help through the co... ... middle of paper ... ...re Perspectives#. Substance Use & Misuse, 38(11-13), 1671-1711. DeMatteo, D., Filone, S., & LaDuke, C. (2011). Methodological, Ethical, and Legal Considerations in Drug Court Research. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(6), 806-820 Roll, J., Prendergast, M., Richardson, K., Burdon, W., & Ramirez, A. (2005). Identifying Predictors of Treatment Outcome in a Drug Court Program. American Journal Of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 31(4), 641-656. Patra, J., Gliksman, L., Fischer, B., Newton-Taylor, B., Belenko, S., Ferrari, M.,& Rehm, J. (2010). Factors associated with treatment compliance and its effects on retention among participants in a court mandated treatment program. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37(2), 289-319. Stinchcomb, J. B. (2010). Drug courts: Conceptual foundation, empirical findings, and policy implications. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 17(2), 148-167.
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.
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.
In addition, the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (BCDTC) is a jurisdiction of interest whose success will be examined. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court was established in 1994 prior to a response by a report presented by the Bar Association of Baltimore city in 1990. There was a rough estimate of about 85% of crimes committed in Baltimore city were related to addiction. The BCDTC are consistent in intensive supervision, a minimum of three meeting with probation officers per month, two home visits and verification of employment status per month. The experimental research design began in February 1997 with 235 clients randomly assigned to either control for circuit courts or control for district court and all the data were
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
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 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
While results from drug courts vary, many report a reduction in recidivism rates, drug abuse, judicial and probation caseloads as well as a reduction in cost (Turner et al., 2002; Goldkamp, White & Robinson, 2001). On the basis of the special- ized drug court model, specialized domestic violence courts builds from two legal philosophies of restorative justice and therapeutic jurispru- dence, assessing the positive and negative effects of the legal system on the social and psychological functioning of individuals and reflects a commitment to providing comprehensive services (Tsai,
Drug courts are, as the title states, for offenders with drug problems. The participants chosen for this method agree to terms of treatment, drug testing, and counseling. Their participation can lower their sentences and sanctions or even drop the charges against them completely. Supervision is used to monitor the offender’s participation in the various programs they are assigned, while also verifying their abstinence from drug use through testing (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2011). According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service website, in 2009, there were about 2,400 drug courts in the U.S. These courts are separated into smaller categories based on the age or circumstances of the offenders, such as juveniles, adults, families, veterans, and even college students (OJP, 2010).
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.
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.
The repeated use of drugs often causes both physical and psychological dependence, as mentioned in an article by the Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia (“Drug Dependence”). In order for an individual to truly be set free from their addiction, seeking treatment is necessary. Rehab centers are a great place with scientifically proven methods to cure those addicted to drugs. It is important to try to end drug use in our country, rather than allowing it to continue longer than it already has. While funding for rehabilitation facilities could become an issue, drug users may continue their addiction without proper treatment, and therefore those arrested for drug use should be sent to a rehabilitation center instead of prison.
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).
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.