Sentencing Drugs: A Case Study

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

The Larimer County 8th Judicial District Adult Drug Court program is a governmental agency that provides helps to individuals within the judicial system with drug abuse related offenses gain the tools for success to become a positive member of the community. The clients in this program have voluntarily chosen to be in this program and follow the terms and conditions of their probation as signed by a drug court contract that follows there terms and conditions set by the court. This may seem like a forced step or little step to some, but in reality, this is the first biggest step for drug abuse individuals because it means they are admitting they have a problem with drug abuse. Now it’s the Adult Drug Court team’s opportunity to provide the

The probation officer explained to the observer that these individuals come in individually because the details of their case are more private than the others on Drug Court. In a very similar fashion, the Drug Court proceeded by the Judge asking for input from the probation officers as well as the service agency representatives. The observer noticed the main theme of Drug Court is for Judge Barrasse to verify the time spent in sobriety from each person. Upon hearing the answer, the entire room would respond with an applause. Unlike MHC, Drug Court consists of a series of four phases in which one graduates from in order to complete the entire program. The individual moves through the stages at the recommendation of the probation officer and in agreement with the treatment providers.

Drug courts have historically been the preferred way to treat drug users/offenders. What are the requirements for an offender who participates in drug court? How does this differ from the LEAD program?

Since no drug court follow an uniform standard model, each state addressed the issue depending on their own jurisdiction model or code with slight variation of the six requirements under Morrissey (Oram & Gleckker, 2006). In State v. Cassill-Skilton (2004), Washington state statute authorized the creation of drug courts but failed to provide the provisions for operating the treatment program. The notice requirement became the center focus of the case where the defendant was admitted into a drug treatment program but violated the terms of conditions when the defendant was charged with another offense during the course of the treatment (State v. Cassill-Skilton, 94 P.3d 407, 2004). The court terminated the defendant from the treatment program

The United States’ prison population is currently number one in the world. As a nation that proclaims freedom for citizens, the United States houses more than one million more persons than Russian and almost one million more persons than China. Currently, the United States makes up five percent of the world’s population and imprisons twenty-five percent of the world’s inmate population. Drug offenders who committed no act of violence make up a large portion of the inmates in the United States. County, State, and Federal prisons are so over populated that the private sector has opened up corporate facilities to house convicted persons. The cost each year to hold a person rises, placing larger financial demands on the judicial system. The Judicial System of the United States should reevaluate the sentencing guidelines for non-violent drug offenders to alleviate the high number of people in the prison system.

Drug court is an alternative sentencing program to rehabilitate defendants who were arrested for selling, using and abusing drugs. Drug court is not set up like the traditional court system within the criminal justice system, it’s a court system that addresses several issues defendants are going through prior to being in the criminal justice system and it also help reduce court dockets within the system.

Drugs have been known to be detrimental to American society. Commonly known as “ The war on drugs”. Majority of individuals who are incarcerated have been convicted of some type of drug offense and if not a drug related crimes. In many instances, a person can be sent to a jail or prison without receiving the required treatment to help the individual overcome their drug of choice. Remarkably, there is a court solely focused on an individual with a drug problem, which is known as Drug courts.

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."

In a study that was done back in 1970 by Sutherland and Cressey, they pointed out that in the U.S. alone, “felons are overrepresented in the addict population, [and] crime rates are increased considerably by drug addiction” (1970, p. 164). Despite having proposed several hypotheses attempting to explain the correlation between drug abuse and crime, they could not reach a conclusion. A decade later, the knowledge about the drug/crime relationship had steadily increased due to numerous studies of the incarcerated or addicted population. However, the information didn’t reveal any viewpoints that made sense aside from heroin. This view was

Those incarcerated today are not given the chance to change their behavior patterns, especially when it is in regard to drug addiction. The criminal justice system in general does not consider drug abuse as anything but a crime and does not think about treating the disease of addiction in order to reduce or eliminate the crimes that come as a

In fairness to Mitch Daniels, he did eventually gain some compassion for the issue and at one point endorsed alternative sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders as Indiana’s Governor. On the other hand, Bill Clinton and high level members of his administration had smoked marijuana in their youth, yet the Clinton administration was one of the toughest in the war on drugs -- except when cases hit close to home. Clinton found time during “Pardongate” to pardon the drug charges of his brother. Also, the son of Richard W. Riley, Clinton’s Secretary of Education, faced federal charges of conspiring to sell cocaine and marijuana. He faced a penalty of ten years to life in prison and a $4 million fine, yet he was only sentenced to 6 months of house arrest.

Drug abuse is shown to be connected to all different kinds of crime in the United States, and in many circumstances, crime is inspired by drug abuse and addiction. In fact, 80% of criminal offenders abuse drugs or alcohol (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Also, 60% of those who are arrested test positive for illicit drugs when they are arrested, and 60-80% commit another crime, typically drug-related, after leaving prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). And, even after these individuals put in the time in prison that would allow them to go through the uncomfortable process of detoxing, 95% of them will chose to go back to drug abuse after prison (National Association of Drug Court Professionals). Given these overwhelming statistics, it is clear that drug abuse, and repeated or continued drug abuse, are a serious problem facing the criminal justice system.

It is common knowledge that America has the world’s largest population of prisoners, and in 2008, a study was completed by the Pew Charitable Trusts which indicated that half of the inmates in jail and prison are serving time for nonviolent drug charges (http://www.pewstates.org/news-room/press-releases/new-pew-study-finds-36-percent-increase-in-prison-time-served-85899394970). Since the “War on Drugs” approach about forty years ago, the criminalization of the addict has done very little to address the problem of substance abuse in society. While there is no one clear cause of substance abuse, there have been patterns identified in substance abusers, that may be the underlying factors that lead to the addiction. Some of these factors include mental health and biology.

In my opinion, I believe Van Nguyen should have been given clemency. While he was convicted of drug trafficking, Singaporean police should have not carried out the execution for reasons such as: inhumanity and contradiction. In today's world we all want to move towards a violence free society, and I can't see how dishing out capitol punishment helps our move. It is contradicting and makes our plea for violence free seem meaningless. I believe no-one deserves to die, and that we all make mistakes, some worse than others but we should all be given a second chance. Furthermore, I don't believe that executing Van Nguyen will deter future drug traffickers from this type of behavior. Instead, what should have happened was, the Singaporean government should have still sentenced Van Nguyen to a penalty, but one that will allow people to rectify their mistakes, and reflect on their choices and understand the consequences that are involved and what the effects are on others. Finally, I can understand Tony Abbot's statement, about "people do need to understand that drug trafficking is a very serious offence", it is clear that while traveling overseas you are out of the Australian governments control, you leave our democracy and enter another, and it is important to familiarise yourself with other laws, but in the end, the decision made on Van Nguyen's life was unreasonable.