Treatment Court Observation

Many different states have begun sending nonviolent drug offenders to various kinds of drug treatment program the state offers. By doing this, it has significantly reduced the problems with overcrowding. If an individual is arrested and charged with simple possession of a drug and no other crime is being commented, then this person is doing no harm to anyone else. They should be given the opportunity to try and make a change in their life and beat the addiction. Instead, if this person is thrown into jail, they are still going to be an addict with a criminal record now and will not be able to be a contributing member of society. (Everett 1 ).

program take defendants through an intensive treatment program lasting for a year or more, with the end result being sober members of the community with stable employment or positive progress through a vocational or educational program (DeKalb County Drug Court, 2006). During the levels of C.L.E.A.N. volunteer defendants have a drug court team. Each team consists of a designated judge, representatives of the State’s Attorney’s Office, the public defender or legal counsel of the defendant, court services, law enforcement, treatment providers, a community representative and a drug court staff member (DeKalb County Drug Court, 2006 p.34). The drug court team meets prior to drug court sessions and acts a case-management team for participants in the C.L.E.A.N. program before each drug court session. Information is shared about the participants based on each team member’s perspective and interaction with them. A professional consensus is gathered from the available knowledge and used in determining the progress through the phases of individual members (DeKalb County Drug Court,

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

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.

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

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

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

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 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,

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

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

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).

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

The use of criminal restrictions for drug related crimes is not always an entirely punitive tool, and that penalties, or even the threat of them, often urge individuals struggling with addiction or substance abuse to get the treatment they might never seek or receive on their own, therefore increasing their opportunities to become productive members of society. In fact, more than one-third of all treatment referrals in the U.S.