Length Of Treatment Analysis

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.

One of the main barriers that inmates face when they are released from prison is limited cognitive skills, limited education and work experience, and substance abuse or other mental health problems. Substance abuse and other mental health problems limit employability because it limits the job readiness that is required for employment (Holzer, Raphael & Stoll, 2003). Another issue that is faced when inmates are released into society is that any skills that they did have prior to conviction has diminished greatly and they face lower pay due to their diminished or lack of skills, and the attitudes that have been developed during their time in prison deeply affects their attitude during their search for employment. Offenders also face another barrier when searching for employment. Many businesses can be held legally liable for any criminal action that their employees may cause (Holzer, Raphael & Stoll, 2003). These barriers that offenders face upon release is why solid solutions and planning must be implemented when considering the integration of ex-felons into society and preparation for reentry must begin well before the scheduled release date in order to successfully reintegrate an inmate into society and reduce the rate of recidivism.

Drug Courts came about as a result of a backlogged court system and a steady, rapidly increasing prison population. Drug courts are a form of diversion that helps the offender through rehabilitation and the community through an increased sense of protection, which serves the best interest of everyone. Drug Courts are community based intermediate sanctions that incorporate treatment principles into the Criminal Justice System and divert drug offenders from traditional punishments of probation and prison. The objective of drug courts programs is to treat the underlying problems of addiction among drug offenders and eliminate participants’ future drug use and crime.

This study on drug courts intends to systematically review quasi-experimental and experimental evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts. With an emphasis on committing future crimes and continuous drug use. This report focused on the programs associated with the standard in the criminal justice system case processing. This review expresses the effects of recidivism in the long and short-term soundness with the current evidence along with the relationship reduction and effectiveness. Eligibility for drug court applies to a non violent offender, with proof of substance dependency. Drug courts stand on the concept that combines drug treatment with legal and moral authority in the attempts to break the cycle of addiction and the committing

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.

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.

Drug addiction has increased drastically across America in the last fifty years. Non-violent drug offenders fill our jails and prisons. Taxpayer dollars are put into a prison system that is proving to be counter-productive. Recidivism rates are high. Drug Court is an alternative to incarceration that offers rehabilitation to criminal offenders. In drug court, the traditional functions of the U.S. justice system are profoundly altered. The judge is the leader of a treatment team. The judge makes all final decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom, including the type of treatment mandated and how to address

Currently, America incarcerate a higher percentage of its citizens than any other industrialized nation in the world. The negative impact of addiction to alcohol and drugs on American culture and society is inescapable. Although various treatment models have been developed and implemented over the years, a monumental number of people struggling with substance dependence continue to be under treated. Whereas, many people are questioning the criminalization people face because they ingest or consume drugs, for the most part, the criminal justice system focus more on incarceration instead of rehabilitation for the offenders and addicts.

Whenever interventions are instituted, the success rate will never be 100 percent. As it pertains to drug courts, the success or lack of success could be due to a number of reasons. A few notable reasons are said to have to do with the way the program is set up, the wrong type of defendants selected, and even that the program is poorly administered. When measuring a drug court’s effectiveness, it’s imperative that all data related to the drug court and its defendants are carefully evaluated. It has been found that some evaluations performed on drug courts fail to produce positive results because they many do not completely fulfill all of the research on the courts and the participants. They fail to follow participants for an acceptable period of time after completing or were disqualified from the program, and comparisons are often biased. As one can see, there are many irregularities and weaknesses in many of the evaluations done on drug courts, leaving inconsistent and questionable findings on whether the program is successful or not (Burke, 2010).

Despite the growing popularity of drug treatment courts in the United States, challenges and inconsistences surround the quintessential alternative to incarceration. As noted by Lindquist et al. (2006), there are vast inconsistencies in the clarification and implementation of graduated sanctions and rewards. The definitions and interpretation of graduated sanctions varies immensely on jurisdiction, which results in inconsistent application of sanctions. Rather than applying the graduated sanctions in a fair and standardized manner, some drug treatment courts are known to tailor the sanctions to the individual participant. This aberrant approach to the sanctions model results in ineffective treatment because participants may not know which sanction to expect to receive for committing a particular infraction (Lindquist, et al., 2006).

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

Overall, the results of this study indicate that incarceration, at least for drug related offenses, does not decrease recidivism. Inmates sentenced to incarceration rather than other community-corrections sentences learn how to continue to commit crime. This is true because these individuals are housed with more serious offenders. The prisonization effect creates more criminality. According to the results of this study, one participant went on to commit murder while several offenders went on to burglarize or shoplift. On the other hand, community corrections (probation and deferred prosecution) appear to be much more beneficial to the community. Although half of the offenders sampled did recidivate, the most common repeat offense was a probation

There are several reasons why it is difficult to target the reentry programs to the offenders incarcerated in jail including mental illness, substance abuse and dependence, limited employability, and extensive criminal histories (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2015). A percentage of the jail inmates have reported a mental condition, consequently, less than half of those received care. More than half of jail inmates abuse drugs or alcohol, furthermore, only a small percentage join any substance programs while in jail. The inmates have a low employability, with only slightly more than half that were working prior to their arrest. Additionally, there is a general shortage of personnel in the overcrowded setting. Another factor is that rarely do offenders

“A drug court is a special court given responsibility to handle cases involving substance-abusing offenders through comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services and immediate sanctions and incentives” (“what are drug courts?”). “These offenders have alcohol, drug addiction, and depending problems. Drug courts keep individuals in treatment long enough for it to work, while supervising them closely” (“what are drug courts?”). “In 1989, the first drug court was built in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Miami-Dade drug court sparked a national revolution that has forever changed our justice system” (“what are drug courts?”). “Circuit court Judge Herbert M. Klein had become troubled by the negative effects of drug offenses on Dade County. He became determined to address the problem caused by widespread drug use. This first drug court became a model program for the nation” (“Drug Courts”, 2005). The main purpose of the drug court system is mainly to utilize the programs set in place to help serve the community better, and to deal with drug offenders in the local community. Each offender, whether they are a drug user or another offense, have drug courts that specifically tailor to the needs and certain interventions needed. Drug courts aim to monitor drug addicted criminal offenders and provide them treatment. It also helps these individuals from obtaining any more drugs, committing crimes due to drug use, helps them to complete their education, and helps them to

As previously stated studies indicate that almost all inmates will eventually be released and are expected to reintegrate back into the community (Davis et al., 2015; Ray et al., 2015). Education is another central factor that contributes to recidivism. Studies reveal that many offenders have difficulty finding employment, typically due to limited or lack of education and have few job skills (Bender et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2012). As indicated in previous research in order to reduce crime and recidivism, ex- offenders need assistance in gaining access to opportunities such as education and training, as well as employment, housing, insurance, and medical care (Bender et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2012; Keena & Simmons, 2015; Pogrebin