Friday October 3, 2014 I visited the treatment court presided over by the Honorable Judge John Brown, who has been with treatment court for the past 3 years. Treatment court is a bi lateral contract between the defendant and the State of Montana where the court provides an avenue for willing participants to integrate themselves back into society, it is an alternative to traditional sentencing where substance abuse is a motivating factor for the offender’s criminal behavior. The five fundamentals of treatment court are as follows, sobriety, responsibility, honesty, integrity, and service. During the 18-month program participants are required to abstain from using any mind-altering substances, they must also report any substance uses to the …show more content…
Crystal was a 43-year-old waitress from three forks. Her husband is a convenience store manager and she currently has her own 2 teenage children living with her as well as a nephew, all of who depend on her and her husband. Thus far she had been in custody for 6 weeks. Crystal had been a lifetime user, when asked what her drug of choice was she gave the response “anything and everything”. Crystal admitted to using meth, coke, weed, pain pills, and heroin intravenously. Her first drug offense happened while living in Missoula at the age of 28 where she started prison almost twelve years ago. Following that sentence Crystal had been sober for six years, until she had to have a hip surgery that led her back down the path of drug abuse. She has many prior offenses and recently served 4 years in prison of a ten year suspended sentence. Had crystal not agreed to drug court there was a possibility that the 10 year sentence by Lewis and Clark county would have been reinstated and she would have gone back to prison for the 6 remaining years of that sentence. After treatment court and her current situation and options had been explained to her Crystal signed a contract and was therefore accepted into the treatment court program. It was explained to her that she must comply with all the requirements of drug court, and she was provided with a backpack containing an alarm clock, day planner, meeting schedule, bus route and schedule, as well as the blue book. The backpack is courtesy of the friends of treatment court, a local group of citizens who want to see participants succeed and return to a normal life. Crystal’s goals after the completion of Treatment court are to finish her degree, and become a productive member of
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
In 1994, Los Angeles County established its first Drug Court Program; within a few months, a second court was implemented. These two programs were the beginning of the Los Angeles County Drug Court system and represented a growing “movement to significantly alter the criminal justice system’s response to drug addiction and crime” (Fielding et al., 2002, p. 218). As of 2015, there are 12 adult drug courts in Los Angeles County that specialize in drug treatment services for drug involved and dependent offenders. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (1997) the mission of “drug courts is to stop the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and related criminal activity” (p. 7). Drug courts utilize a team approach to promote
Today is November seventeenth, this will be the first meeting with my new client Jill. She has an extensive criminal background due to the fact that she was caught shoplifting and under the influence on several occasions. At a later date, Jill was given a court date and failed to make an appearance. As a result of her failing to attend her court case, a warrant for her arrest was dispatched. Shortly after Jill’s warrant for her arrest was sent out she was caught speeding on Route eighty by a state trooper who then pulled Jill over. When, the officer scanned her license he discovered Jill 's warrant for arrest. On further inspection of Jill’s vehicle, the officer detected that she was in possession of various illegal substances and was then suspected of her herself being overwhelmingly intoxicated by such substances. Consequently, Jill was apprehended due to there being a warrant for her arrest in addition to her possession of drugs. As a result, of Jill being caught by the officer she has been forcefully stationed into the PHP program (Partial Hospitalization program). Which she will be spending half of her day counseling with various social workers such as myself. Meanwhile, the remainder of her day will be spent attending school under close supervision. If Jill refuses to make an appearance to these mandatory meetings there will be severe repercussions. Failure to attend will have her imprisoned in a juvenile detention center until she is of legal age to be relocated to a
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.
Since the first drug court was established in 1989 in Florida, it can be said there are more than 800 active drug courts today. Drug courts work with the intent of treatment over punishment to prevent recidivism and promote public safety, therefore sentencing treatment over prison. There are two primary functions with the intention of either diverting offenders out of the criminal process by sentencing them to treatment or by post adjudication with suspended sentences pending rehabilitation (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2015, p. 142-143).
Just as there are supporters of drug courts who will attest to their success, there are an equal amount of critics who believe that drug courts are ineffective. One of the main factors that has been noted as the reason for the program’s lack of success is that since each state regulates its own program, it’s hard to effectively
The NADCP was formed from the original drug court professionals who gathered to advocate the effectiveness of the drug court model and to work with future drug court team members across the country in providing the guidance needed to formulate an effective model (Webster, 2015). Under OJP funding, it established Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project (DCCTAP) in 1995 to aid in planning, implementation, and assessments of drug courts (Webster, 2015). In cooperation between NADCP and DCCTAP, both organizations convened in a committee to develop a set of principles or components for drug court to adopt. The report: Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components, provides a framework for each individual jurisdictions in implementing its drug court program based on 10 key components of a drug court and provide a performance benchmark for each of the 10 components (NADCP, 1995; Saum & Hiller,
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
These courts deal with offenders who have been convicted with crimes regarding drugs or offenders who have become addicted to drugs. As Griffiths had stated (2015), one must be qualified in order to be redirected into this court by the crown prosecutor, for instance, taking responsibility of the crime, pleading guilty, and committing a crime that is not violent, is required. DTCs appear all around Canada, the Edmonton drug court, being one of the available problem-solving courts. Parsons discusses the major budget cut backs the Edmonton Drug Court received in January of 2015. Although this negatively affected the court, the “True Imagination” award was honored to the Edmonton drug court to acknowledge to acknowledge their hard work and determination through it all, by providing substantial support to offenders (2015). As discussed by Griffiths, once individuals are involved in DTCs, they must engage drug testing along with programs that will aid them through their drug abuse. Typically, a decrease in drug usage must be seen in order for successful completion and this is done through resources provided to the individual therefore a change can be made. If an individual cannot obey the rules and regulations of the Drug Treatment courts, they are forced to go through the traditional court and will not be given the opportunity to better their quality of life. Traditional courts have been shown to be more costly than drug treatment courts. On the contrary, there are many downsides to this type of problem-solving court. For instance, research shows that there is a sufficient number of individuals of do not successfully complete this program, mostly being aboriginal individuals and women, which in turn leads to problems in their personal lives (2015,
Since the first drug court was founded, over 3,400 drug courts exist today in every U.S. state and territory (NIJ.gov). The national institute of justice reported that a 33 percent reduction in rearrest rates for drug court graduates compared with other like offenders (Neubauer). The National Association of Drug Court professionals reports that 75 percent of drug court graduates remain arrest-free for at least two years after leaving the program. They also report that drug courts alone reduce crime as much as 45 percent more than other sentencing options (NADCP.org). Not only does drug court benefit the offenders and society, it also benefits taxpayer money. Drug court treatment for the offenders typically cost anywhere between $2,000 to $6,000 annually, depending on the severity of the crime and depending on how long the judge feels the program should last. Instead of wasting taxpayer money and sending them to jail for their addiction, the money is used to treat the offenders and help them so that they don’t end up in prison again as well as beating their addiction along the way. The reason why drug courts have been so successful is because they use therapeutic jurisprudence through the community to help treat their
Drug Court is an example of drugs/alcohol intervention programs which monitors the movement of non-violent drug addicts in a well refined structured treatment programs to help them recover. I heard about drug court for the first time when we watched the movie in class. I think drug court gives drugs/alcohol offenders chances to redeem themselves by sending them to rehab and other services that will help make them better people within the period. Three reasons why I think drug courts are effective in a community.
This report starts off with an overview of drug courts are, then moves into the overall problem with drug control in the United States. They talk about the history and the rise in drug offenses during the 1980’s causing the prison populations to rise. When comparing the rise of drug offenses, they found it was both state and federal level. The growth of drug offenses became approximately one in every 198 persons was incarcerated. About nine years later, the first drug court was established. Courts, jails, and prisons were seeing a pattern with the number of low level repeat drug offenders and street dealers starting to cause problems with overcrowding . The drug court movement was a shift from law enforcement’s emphasis on reducing drug use.
Mental health courts change the criminal justice system. In addition to probation, jail, prison, and other forms of rehabilitation, a mental health court introduces a new option as “punishment”. Psychiatric treatment. But mental health courts also change the system in other ways, by criminalizing non-criminal behaviours. But the mental health courts that exist so far, with very few exceptions, accept only people charged with nonviolent low-level offenses. While these courts help some people get services, they do nothing to help the mentally ill facing prison or lengthy jail sentences, and they do not reduce the criminalization of mental illness. If mental health courts increase the punishment of minor offenses, as some undoubtedly do, their
Kendra’s Law is designed to provide court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) for certain people with a mental illness who, in view of their treatment history and present circumstances, are unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision (Office of Mental Health) (OMH, 2012). On August 9, 1999 the Governor signed Kendra’s Law which created a statutory framework for court-ordered AOT (OMH, 2012). The law is named after an incident that occurred in a New York City subway station in January, 1999. Kendra Webdale, a young aspiring writer, was pushed in front of an oncoming train by a man with a history of mental illness (i.e. schizophrenia) and hospitalizations who failed to take his prescribed medications (Corrigan, Mueser, Bond, Drake, & Solomon, 2008; OMH, 2012; Worthington, 2009). Webdale was one of the three to five percent of victims of violent crime by a mentally ill individual (Worthington, 2009).