Non Punitive Measures Should Be Used By The Criminal Justice System

This paper will discuss facts regarding the prosecution process, the concepts of incapacitation and deterrence as methods of reducing crime rates, the network of people that the prison system exposes criminals to, and the assimilation of criminals back into society as seen through recidivism rates, for the purpose of analyzing the ethical scope of the effectiveness of the process of remediation as a whole.

A great deal of harm is caused by illicit drugs, particularly to dependant users. Drug use damages the user and diminishes an individual’s social cohesion. An individual’s dependency on illicit drugs places a heavy burden on the Australian legal system, welfare(Centrelink), the justice system(lawyers) and the medical system. The many burdens caused by the manufacture, supply and use of illicit drugs effect the efficiency of Australia. The Drugs misuse and trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) applies to over 240 drugs, including

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.

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

This policy was enforced because a statistic was made; that between 2011 and 2012, an estimated 8.9% of adults used an illegal drug. And 19.3% of young people aged between 16 and 24 also used an illegal drug. Drug misuse has a negative effect on the health, wellbeing and quality of life of too many people. It also drains public resources. Crimes related to drugs cost the UK £13.3 billion every year.

“Drug policy regarding the control of the traditional illicit substances (opiates, cocaine, cannabis) is currently moving through upbeat times in almost all Western countries. Prohibition on the basis of repressive law enforcement not only seems to fail on a large scale, but also to create vast additional costs, problems, and harm for drug consumers, who often find themselves in extreme social, economic, and health conditions” (Fischer 1995: 389).

Tougher sentencing is not likely to reduce illegal drug use or serious crime associated with drugs (Alexander, 2010; Mauer, 2009; Whitford & Yates, 2009). Despite that, politicians and law enforcement personnel continue to advocate for stronger sentences for those who take or sell drugs of any kind. The jails and prisons across the United States are filling up with drug offenders, and some believe that there are better uses for those jail cells and that there are many crimes that are more severe and significant. These are the crimes that should be provided with tougher sentencing guidelines, but yet illegal drug use is still a serious crime and should not go unpunished. What should be done, and how should changes be made? Those are tough questions that have to be explored and that do not have any easy answers for those who make the laws and those who enforce them. Drug incarceration has been on the rise, with mixed results. According to King (2008), "overall, between 1980 and 2003, the number of drug offenders in prison or jail increased by 1100% from 41,100 in 1980 to 493,800 in 2003, with a remarkable rise in arrests concentrated in African American communities."

Sixty-seven percent of people who were surveyed believe that treatment should be emphasized for those who use illegal drugs rather than punishment. Only 26 percent believe jail sentencing should be emphasized. And the percentage of people who believe that the governments should do away with minimum mandatory sentences for drug crimes increased from 47 percent in 2001 to 2014. This addresses the wider question of how to deal with drug offenders in a way that will best help them rather than being sentenced to jail. Receiving treatment rather than jail sentencing is one that has come up an amount of times in the last few months, as Queensland struggles with the best way to help drug addicts. The law from the 1970s allows judges to send addict law-breakers

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

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.

The drug court also provides powerful incentives and punishments for it participates. Some may be harsh and others are less harsh. At the state level the recidivism rate has lowered (Fulkerson et al., 2012; Rempel et. Al., 2003; Shaffer, 2011; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2003). This is due to the defendant’s participation rate. There was a national study done showing a two-year recidivism rate of 28% (Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003).

A popular but controversial method of treatment is the use of drug courts or the stipulation of an offender to treatment. Mackenzie, Mitchell and Wilson (2006) addressed this concern by asking, how effective can treatment be if it is forced upon someone? Drug courts are similar to the research by Alterman et

The Alcohol and other drug (AOD) field is dynamic and fluid and is constantly being shaped by a variety of forces (The Department of Health, 2004). Illicit drug use is a widespread issue around the world, posturing significant social and economic costs to the health care system, justice department and social welfare systems in both developing and developed countries (Damrongplasit, Hsiao, & Zhao, 2012). Criminal Justice and addictive drugs have been tangled in Australia and internationally for a century or more. Ever since the addictive and destructive properties were discover within certain drugs, officials have declared the production, distribution, sale and possession of drugs to be illegal (Sherman & Valenta, 2015).

This leads to an increase in criminal activity such as neglect of familial duties, robberies to fund their dependency, and violence to defend their habits. The ‘drugee’ becomes a nuisance to society. Some become homeless and exhibit poor health habits such as malnutrition and tooth decay. Other negative effects include the transference of diseases because of needle sharing. Though drug use is a personal choice, the effects on the rest of society are undeniable. The best intentions are formulated on a personal level, but this is overcastted by its negative effects. This argument, however, is a bit one-sided because the reason for using and dependency varies between users.

Drug abuse and predatory criminality go hand in hand in a few, select social groups, while in others, drug abuse most often occurs without criminal behavior (other than the fact they’re doing drugs.) Despite what most might think, drug abuse typically follows predatory criminality. As drug abusers keep trying harder drugs due to necessity, the intensity of their criminal behavior escalates dramatically. When using more than one type of drug at one time, studies show that the frequency of criminal activity increases. But, when these drug offenders decrease the amount of drugs they put in their system, their rate of criminal activity also decreases, which shows that drugs can cause a person to commit crime. This shows that drug usage can cause crime and stopping drug usage can slow or even halt criminal activity.