DRUG COURTS -- Alternative Sentencing -- Does It Really Work?
In recent years, arrests for drug related offenses have more than doubled. Many judges have observed a rise in repeat offenders – noting that traditional methods of dealing with addicts, such as strict probation or mandatory imprisonment, did not attack the fundamental problem of addiction. The traditional criminal justice system was treating the symptoms and not addressing the problems. An alternative court had to be created to meet the correctional, rehabilitative needs of an ever-growing, drug-infested society. With drug-related crime skyrocketing, coupled with the ever-increasing costs of incarcerating prisoners, alternative courts have become a necessity.
Drug Courts are a Community-based programs and must involve various sectors of the community if it is to succeed. The establishment of drug courts throughout the United States is part of an on-going effort to combat the ever-rising number of drug related crimes within our communities. Drug courts work by recognizing that unless substance abuse ends, fines and/or jail time are unlikely to prevent future criminal activity. As a long-term solution to crime, drug courts concentrate their energy in eliminating drug addiction through frequent random drug testing and intensive court supervision. Drug courts differ from traditional methods of adjudication not only in their methodology and ideology, but also in their results. Drug courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-related offenders by eliminating their drug-additive habits. By combining court-ordered and court-monitored treatments with court-ordered sanctions and rewards, drug courts are effectively reducing crime and are rehabilitating non-violent offenders at a higher rate and at a substantially lower cost than the traditional criminal justice system. The APA ONLINE – Monitor on Psychology, says “Drug and mental health courts give certain offenders what they really need: treatment.” Their complete report can be found at http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/alternatives.html .
Under the traditional criminal justice system, court involvement generally does not take place unless a probation violation has been reported. However, drug courts take a more active role in the supervision of defendants. Defendants undergo court-supervised weekly random drug testing, have mandatory weekly court-evaluation appearances, and are required to attend regular treatment sessions. The level of court supervision is much higher than that of traditional treatments. Drug court participants exhibit a substantially lower rate of recidivism than participants of the traditional criminal justice system.
Qualified drug court defendants enter a guilty plea for their charges which is held in abeyance. This deferred plea and corresponding sentence is put on hold while the defendant is enrolled in the drug court program. Upon completion of the program, the guilty plea is withdrawn, charges are dismissed, and all records pertaining to the charge are expunged. If however, the offender does not complete the program, sentencing commences and imprisonment is imposed. Eligibility for drug court varies from state to state.
A study conducted in St. Louis, Missouri claims that, “Benefits outweigh additional costs of drug court.” Oklahoma City’s KFOR Channel 4 News reported in 2005 that, “A new study suggests that drug abusers sent to drug courts for treatment instead of to prison often earn more money and draw less welfare than abusers who are given probation.” More details on this news breaking event can be found at: http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=1626409 .
There are three basic kinds of drug courts: adult criminal, dependency, and juvenile. Adult criminal drug courts focuses upon individual adult offenders charged with felony drug crimes. Dependency drug courts hear cases where the state has alleged abuse or neglect on the part of the parent. These drug courts acknowledge that neglect is more than likely a product of drug addiction. Parents are held accountable for their behavior and monitored treatment with a focus on recovery is ordered, so that the family can be reunited. Juvenile drug courts are aimed specifically at first or second time juvenile offenders. Requirements of juvenile drug courts include sixty hours of community service, written essays on the dangers of drug use, and intensive court supervision.
Opponents to the drug courts cite a series of non-defendable reasons for its elimination. They inaccurately claim the drug courts are not cost effective. They also incorrectly claim judges exercise to much judicial discretion and distribute an unequal share of court supervision among participants. They make unproven allegations of racial bias and dispense unfounded accusations that political and economical favoritism is an essential ingredient for the successful program completion of many drug court graduates. They assert that these drug courts were not established by any legislature and therefore are illegal. They argue that – in violation of their constitutional rights – defendants are coerced into treatment and enter drug court programs under duress. Jeffrey McMurray of The Associated Press reported at http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=992 that, “The Justice Department cannot gauge the success of drug courts because it no longer collects data on repeat offenders.”
These opponents fail to see the infectiveness and the overall expense of continuing with their outdated “crime control perspective” ideology. Drug Courts were created with a focus on the “rehabilitation perspective” ideology and are administered by combining the ideologies of the “due process perspective,” “nonintervention perspective,” and the “justice perspective.” In the war on drugs, with its high social costs, multiple perspectives of criminal justice are necessary and must be utilized. Larry Siegel & Joseph Senna discuss these various criminal justice ideologies in detail on pages 22-29 of their textbook: Introduction To Criminal Justice (Publish by :Thomson Wadsworth; 10 Davis Drive-Belmont, Cal.: 2005).The U.S. Department of Justice (National Institute of Justice Data Resource Program) affirms it has been statistically proven that drug courts do work and provide enumerable benefits to its community. Drug courts reduce tax payers incarceration costs; lowers recidivism for drug-related crimes; it strengthens the economy by rehabilitating offenders so that they may enter or re-enter the work force as productive tax-paying employees; It promotes unification of families separated by drug addiction; and by rehabilitating drug addicted females, it reduces the number of drug addicted babies. Drug courts are indeed a win-win situation. So, let’s stop punishing ourselves and start treating these offenders.
Drug Courts are a Community-based programs and must involve various sectors of the community if it is to succeed. The establishment of drug courts throughout the United States is part of an on-going effort to combat the ever-rising number of drug related crimes within our communities. Drug courts work by recognizing that unless substance abuse ends, fines and/or jail time are unlikely to prevent future criminal activity. As a long-term solution to crime, drug courts concentrate their energy in eliminating drug addiction through frequent random drug testing and intensive court supervision. Drug courts differ from traditional methods of adjudication not only in their methodology and ideology, but also in their results. Drug courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-related offenders by eliminating their drug-additive habits. By combining court-ordered and court-monitored treatments with court-ordered sanctions and rewards, drug courts are effectively reducing crime and are rehabilitating non-violent offenders at a higher rate and at a substantially lower cost than the traditional criminal justice system. The APA ONLINE – Monitor on Psychology, says “Drug and mental health courts give certain offenders what they really need: treatment.” Their complete report can be found at http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/alternatives.html .
Under the traditional criminal justice system, court involvement generally does not take place unless a probation violation has been reported. However, drug courts take a more active role in the supervision of defendants. Defendants undergo court-supervised weekly random drug testing, have mandatory weekly court-evaluation appearances, and are required to attend regular treatment sessions. The level of court supervision is much higher than that of traditional treatments. Drug court participants exhibit a substantially lower rate of recidivism than participants of the traditional criminal justice system.
Qualified drug court defendants enter a guilty plea for their charges which is held in abeyance. This deferred plea and corresponding sentence is put on hold while the defendant is enrolled in the drug court program. Upon completion of the program, the guilty plea is withdrawn, charges are dismissed, and all records pertaining to the charge are expunged. If however, the offender does not complete the program, sentencing commences and imprisonment is imposed. Eligibility for drug court varies from state to state.
A study conducted in St. Louis, Missouri claims that, “Benefits outweigh additional costs of drug court.” Oklahoma City’s KFOR Channel 4 News reported in 2005 that, “A new study suggests that drug abusers sent to drug courts for treatment instead of to prison often earn more money and draw less welfare than abusers who are given probation.” More details on this news breaking event can be found at: http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=1626409 .
There are three basic kinds of drug courts: adult criminal, dependency, and juvenile. Adult criminal drug courts focuses upon individual adult offenders charged with felony drug crimes. Dependency drug courts hear cases where the state has alleged abuse or neglect on the part of the parent. These drug courts acknowledge that neglect is more than likely a product of drug addiction. Parents are held accountable for their behavior and monitored treatment with a focus on recovery is ordered, so that the family can be reunited. Juvenile drug courts are aimed specifically at first or second time juvenile offenders. Requirements of juvenile drug courts include sixty hours of community service, written essays on the dangers of drug use, and intensive court supervision.
Opponents to the drug courts cite a series of non-defendable reasons for its elimination. They inaccurately claim the drug courts are not cost effective. They also incorrectly claim judges exercise to much judicial discretion and distribute an unequal share of court supervision among participants. They make unproven allegations of racial bias and dispense unfounded accusations that political and economical favoritism is an essential ingredient for the successful program completion of many drug court graduates. They assert that these drug courts were not established by any legislature and therefore are illegal. They argue that – in violation of their constitutional rights – defendants are coerced into treatment and enter drug court programs under duress. Jeffrey McMurray of The Associated Press reported at http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=992 that, “The Justice Department cannot gauge the success of drug courts because it no longer collects data on repeat offenders.”
These opponents fail to see the infectiveness and the overall expense of continuing with their outdated “crime control perspective” ideology. Drug Courts were created with a focus on the “rehabilitation perspective” ideology and are administered by combining the ideologies of the “due process perspective,” “nonintervention perspective,” and the “justice perspective.” In the war on drugs, with its high social costs, multiple perspectives of criminal justice are necessary and must be utilized. Larry Siegel & Joseph Senna discuss these various criminal justice ideologies in detail on pages 22-29 of their textbook: Introduction To Criminal Justice (Publish by :Thomson Wadsworth; 10 Davis Drive-Belmont, Cal.: 2005).The U.S. Department of Justice (National Institute of Justice Data Resource Program) affirms it has been statistically proven that drug courts do work and provide enumerable benefits to its community. Drug courts reduce tax payers incarceration costs; lowers recidivism for drug-related crimes; it strengthens the economy by rehabilitating offenders so that they may enter or re-enter the work force as productive tax-paying employees; It promotes unification of families separated by drug addiction; and by rehabilitating drug addicted females, it reduces the number of drug addicted babies. Drug courts are indeed a win-win situation. So, let’s stop punishing ourselves and start treating these offenders.
posted by ytownherb at 8:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home