Drug Courts Summary

Not only do the eligibility requirements of drug courts vary across the board, but the way the programs operate and their outcomes vary considerably, especially when it comes down to how they choose to operationalize the ten key components (Carey & Waller, 2011; Mackin et. al, 2009). In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals published these key components. The first key component is that drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing (NADCP, 1997). Being that the mission of drug courts is to combat the abuse of drugs and alcohol it is imperative for them to promote recovery through coordinated responses. The second key component states that drug courts should use a

Drug court was first started in 1989 in Miami, Florida. Drug court came about due to the link between crime and drug abuse. This drug related crimes caused the jails to become over populated. Drug court became the solution to aid in the recovery of SUD as well as weed out petite drug related crimes and hard criminals. This is in intensive program with court supervision, case management for prosecution and/or incarceration. As well as a team of professional that assist the client in with the court, probation, treatment and police. These professional meet up with the client to discuss the program and how they are doing in it. This is a abstinence base program that help with rapid treatment entry, integrated treatment and court service, drug testing, and a sanctions and reward system (Miller,2015)

In most cases, one of the main objectives of courts and the sentences they impose is that of rehabilitation. This is evidenced through a growing move in favour of a more holistic approach to justice, trying to address the issues which may have led to the crime, rather than just punishing the end result. One of the prime examples of this therapeutic approach to justice is the introduction of the Drug Court. Governed by the Drug Court Act 1998, the Drug court has both Local court and District court jurisdiction, and seeks to target the causes of drug-related criminal behaviour. It achieves this by ensuring that those who go through it receive treatment for their addictions, thereby reducing their propensity to reoffend, as many crimes are motivated by the need to satisfy addictions.

7. Both Tiger and Kaye question the notion of drug courts as a positive, liberal alternative to imprisonment. Tiger focuses on how drug courts attempt to merge the criminalization and medicalization of addiction, which she argues are contradictory approaches to treatment (Tiger 2011, 170). She expands on this contradiction by discussing how drug courts use medical terminology in their treatment, yet include very few actual medical professionals in treatment (Ibid, 179). She notes that the main figure in drug court treatment appears to be the judge, a clear figure of criminalization that takes control of treatment (Ibid, 177). The inclusion of the judge in the treatment of what is called a disease is inherently contradictory and only serves

Drug courts, which combine judicial supervision with substance abuse treatment, are rapidly gaining popularity as a tool to combat crime and drug use. Based on a five-year study, we found that people who took part in drug courts had lower relapse rates and committed fewer additional crimes, such as selling drugs and driving while intoxicated. Forty-nine percent of drug court participants reported committing new crimes, compared with 64 percent of

I can’t speak for the entire State of Texas but Travis County drug court is making a positive impact on offenders’ lives. Two judges who manage Travis County’s drug court are directing addicts into a court supervised treatment program instead of incarceration. Drug courts like the one in Travis County have successfully handled nonaggressive defendants with drug and alcohol addictions. People who complete drug court programs rarely fall back into substance abuse. Per four drug-court judges surveyed, about 10 percent of program graduates commit new crimes. That’s a recidivism rate of one-fifth that of traditional probation programs. Which shows drug courts can ease the strain on congested penitentiaries and save taxpayer money. A study done by

Putting in charge of developing a drug court it is dream come true because I have always eager to help people overcome any obstacles they deal with in the life. Being a drug addict is something very serious and that cause you to lose your dignity, money and loves ones because once you addicted to the drugs you will go the extreme miles to get that drug and it will become a necessity instead of a need for you. Since I have been putting in charge of developing a new drug court that can help someone, I must first discuss how I will develop that court and criteria but first before discussing the who is eligible, who is not eligible, and the elements of how the drug court will consist of but first I have to explain what is a drug court and provide

Other models include more intensive measures involving campus drug courts and the involvement of administrators, local police, and the judicial system. Dutmers delves into the legality of this issue and provides a new viewpoint by explaining that prevention programs should implement campus drug courts, instead of focusing prevention solely on educational methods. As this idea is new and innovative, most research is based off the success within state mandated drug courts. Nonetheless, campuses will too reap the benefits that result from these establishments, which includes a decrease in repeat offenders. Dutmers notes that, “only 27.5% of offenders recidivated” (203). This direct correlation can be taken a step further because if people are not

Currently, drug courts have been proven to be successful at reducing recidivism of offenders. In the United States there are about 120,000 people receiving help in order to rehabilitate them and to try to reduce the chances of recidivism (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011). These programs require individuals to participate in the programs for a minimum of one year. During this year the individuals are required to appear in court and be drug tested at

Since the declaration of “the war on drugs”, society’s perspective relating to punishment of drug-involved offenders has been much too vindictive. Now, an offender is not allowed to be sent to treatment by a judge, he must go to jail. This is due to mandatory sentencing. Upcoming diversion programs are an excellent alternative to “hard time” for qualifying drug offenders. These programs are becoming very popular and evidence shows that they are greatly beneficial, not only to the accused, but to society as a whole. Diversion programs benefit many regarding the increase in community involvement and safer city streets, rehabilitation of offenders, and financial means. The criminal justice system is currently at a stand still in regards to convicted

The United States of America has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world (Tonry, 1999). The goal of this high rate of incarceration is to deter criminals from committing more crime upon release from prison. Longer sentences are thought to deter individuals from committing more crime. Yet, recent research has questioned whether this high rate of incarceration is actually increasing recidivism rather than decreasing it. This study sets out to determine whether there is a positive relationship between incarceration of criminals who engage in drug-related crimes and recidivism in the community. This analysis examines fifty-six male offenders aged 18-22 years-old. These individuals were convicted in Maricopa County, the largest metropolitan county in the state

This article is used to explain drug use and drug abuse within the United States, and the policies in how to address it to the criminal justice system. It is stated that it begins as an appetite of drugs and then veers off into an obsession with drugs. Looking back, drug courts help provide a substitute to previous systems of incarceration that have worked, but have been seen as expensive and ineffective.

In order to conduct research in the recidivism area, the use of secondary data will be used as an appropriate method for analysis. This analysis consists of measuring traditional penal sanctions such as incarceration versus alternative ways such as a rehabilitation treatment to deal with juvenile delinquency and investigate how it affects recidivism rates. The primary attention for this research proposal purpose is to rely only on juvenile delinquency data as the necessary specific information is not available for the adult population. Certainly, limitations exist as data is not collected by the author of this research proposal. However, due to limited resources this proposal utilizes quantitative methods based on secondary data regardless

Within the first half of the twentieth century the Criminal Justice System’s main objective was to rehabilitate offenders by implementing programs to deter offenders from drug abuse and crimes in America. In the 1970’s and 1980’s there was a decline in rehabilitation programs, but later it gains its momentum by introducing more programs. The traditional courts offered alternative sentences for guilty pleas that are within the sentencing guidelines. Problems defendants had prior to committing criminal activities were never address while they were incarcerated. Therefore, in the United States of America, the first drug court was established in 1989, at the Miami-Dade County, Florida courthouse. This specialty court address defendants who suffered from substance abuse issues. This court demonstrates how defendants can be rehabilitated as well as having their sentence reduced and receive other benefits that drug court will offer them after completion of the program. Drug court is known to decrease the recidivism rate by 50% or more.

The purpose of this study was to show that an effective drug treatment program in the criminal justice system is a necessity and to show that treatment will reduce recidivism thus reducing crime in society as a whole.