During the Fall Semester of my senior year at Ohio University, I had the privilege to be an intern at the Athens County Common Pleas court with Judge McCarthy’s office. My main duties and responsibilities during this internship were to organize, pull and put away court files. I also assisted in court recording while the Judge was on the record in the courtroom. This internship also allowed me the opportunity to spend time and see other aspects of the criminal justice such as Municipal court, Juvenile court, Domestic court and the Adult Parole Authority. Throughout my time in this internship, I saw and experienced things that sparked my sociological thinking. This specific court deals with a lot of drug related problems and as a result, they have had to develop methods for dealing with it. One such thing is the A.C.E (Athens country empowerment) diversion which is one of the rehabilitative methods the court has at its disposal. The other option the court uses is more punitive where they send people to jail or prison. The question that was always in the back of mind during this internship was if diversion programs or jail was a more effective tool at helping these individuals kick their abuse habits and reduce recidivism back into the court. Another aspect that I wanted to look at was if politics and funding play into the courts decisions to hand down a certain punishment. The last thing that I wanted to look at was if there were aspects of social learning within family’s that
As soon as I entered the class, there was a man sitting in our class. His name was Paul Shapiro, and he was from the Orange County Courts. He explained to us what the community court is, and what kind of effect it has on our society. During mid-1980s, crack cocaine was widespread and people kept going back to prison. To cut this infinite loop of incarceration, Orange County made the drug court. It is not like a real court, but rather similar to a program that helps drug addicts free themselves from drug dependence. Unlike other courts, the prosecutor, the attorney, the probation officer, and the judge in the drug court work as a team.
Terry, VanderWaal, McBride, and Holly, discussed the impact of substance abuse within the juvenile justice system. They discussed treatment programs and services that are currently available. Improved substance abuse interventions have the potential to reduce recidivism amongst juveniles. Funding is needed to improve substance abuse treatment centers. Funding for program development requiring collaborative applications may provide valuable incentives for the development of successful juvenile justice collaborations. (Terry, VanderWaal, McBride, & Holly, 2000). Tsui discusses the shortcomings of utilizing detention as the primary method of dealing with the juvenile justice system. Tsui focused on the city of Chicago, and examined the present state of the juvenile justice system by identifying possible barriers and solutions to integrating restorative justice practices in a system primarily focused on detention. (Tsui, 2014).
There has been debate over whether non-violent drug offenders belong in prison. Some believe all drug offenders should be put in prison, others believe that it depends on circumstances, and, still others believe only violent drug offenders should be incarcerated. Overcrowding is one point of contention. It seems as though the slightest infraction can land a person in prison. Violence is rampant, whether inmate versus inmate or inmate versus guard. Rehabilitation or education is practically non-existent, unless an inmate teaching another inmate how to commit the ‘perfect’ crime is counted. Evidence shows being in prison does little to rehabilitate an inmate. Clearly, the system does not work.
The sixth key component requires that sanctions and rewards be coordinated into the programs to govern responses to participant’s compliance and non-compliance (NADCP, 1997). Some rewards could be praise from the judge, reduced supervision, reduced fines and etc. while some sanctions could be fines, community service, or even jail confinement. The seventh key component focuses on the importance of judicial interaction throughout the program, which can sometimes occur on a weekly basis. Key component number eight explains how imperative monitoring and evaluation is to measure the achievement of program goals and measure effectiveness. It is imperative for drug courts to display some sort of positive outcome by “gathering and managing information due to them monitoring daily activities, evaluating the quality of services provided, and producing longitudinal evaluations” (Mackin et al., 2012). The ninth and tenth components promote the importance of interdisciplinary education and forging partnerships with other agencies and community-based organizations. Education and training are important to maintain a specific level of professionalism and expanding collaborations would be helpful to provide a continuum of services for drug court participants.
This paper explores several different sources that cover some aspect of how the United States Penal System went from the Rehabilitative Model to a punitive system. Bryan Stevenson and Betsy Matthews have written about how drug enforcement and the “War on Drugs” are responsible. Yeoman Lowbrow’s analysis of the crime rate and statistics will be considered alongside Matthews’ analysis of the different political parties’ changing views. The change in United States sentencing practices as a result will also be considered. In the conclusion a brief summary of a predicted future will be
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
In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).
The primary interest within the independent variable is to determine whether participation in drug courts decreases the probability of recidivism. To evaluate this concern, the current study will analyze whether receiving treatment in a drug court versus the comparison group of probationers will affect various outcomes. Finally, gender, race, age, and education will also be included in the analysis as control variables.
This data is based on public meetings, hearing from victims, correctional experts, organizations, and citizens around the state. The data that was gathered help develop strategies to reduce spending on corrections, and reinvest in public safety (Justice Reinvestment in Maryland). Maryland developed the Maryland Justice Reinvestment Act in Bipartisan with 26 other states that changed or amended earlier policies adopted from the war on drugs. The JRA aimed to reduce Maryland’s prison population and to use the savings to focus on rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration (Smoot). The JRA made changes to Maryland’s sentencing, release, and supervision policies. First, this act reduces the maximum penalty time for convictions on drug distribution charges. Second, this act repeals mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Finally, this act offers sanctions for parole and probation violators rather than reincarceration
Since the origination of drug treatment courts, there has been countless numbers of offenders who have successfully completed the program and fought their way past drug abuse. There are also a handful of offenders who may have struggled to change their drug abuse or addiction, and fell short of completing the program. In this second part of my report, I will be determining whether drug treatment court programs actually work. To accomplish this task, I will be reviewing three empirical studies to evaluate how effective the program truly is.
Drug courts provide closer supervision than probation, the other notable community based treatment. 17 Drug courts are six times more likely than probation to graduate participants from treatment. In a study of 2,000 graduates nationally it was found that drug courts have lower rates of re-arrest than probation. The re-arrest rate after graduation from of drug courts was sixteen percent after one year and twenty-seven percent after the second year.
I believe that your topic about the effectiveness of drug courts is very interesting. It has been considered as a way that can be very cost effective and probably solve the issue of the overcrowding of prisons. Offenders who are non-violent are not placed in an environment where they probably will not be able to seek rehabilitation. Through the drug court program, the low level offenders will probably have a better opportunity in seeking real help and receive a second chance. They will be able to get support from their family and friends compared to just being placed in the prison system. However, are there enough drug court programs across the nation? How many people are not able to take advantage of this program? Looking forward in learning
I believe that one of the best reforms to our justice system is the growing number of Problem-Solving Courts. Problem-Solving Courts are specialized courts that focus on specific problems in society, such as drug abuse, prostitution, mental-health, domestic violence, etc (Courts). I have chosen drug courts more specifically to research. According to drugpolicy.org, in 2012 1.55 million people were arrested for non-violent drug charges (Drug Policy Alliance). This is an astounding amount of people being arrested, which is why I believe it is important to have problem-solving courts. Unlike traditional courts, these specialized courts address the issues that individuals have that cause them to commit crimes in order to reduce the chances of
It has been a while since I started at the internship and I am really glad I decided to work here. I think the experience in this area is a good preview of my career and future. I am learning some important skills and finding out some things about myself and the tough skin I will need in order to stay in the area of juvenile support.
After this internship made me realised how diverse engineering fields and there is so much new knowledge to learn, considering myself with electrical power engineering background working in construction site which may related on civil engineering field. When I studied the project plan documentations, there is some new term and I need to find extra information on the Internet myself to understand more about the ongoing project. Having said that, knowledge that I have obtained throughout my study in ECU proved to be useful such as basic CAD, mechanic and material courses during my first and second year which make me easier to understand the structure drafting of the floor plans.