Variables In Drug Courts

Drug courts are problem solving courts that take a public health approach using a specialized model in which the judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law enforcement, mental health, social service, and treatment communities work together to help addicted offenders into long-term recovery. Drug courts began in 1989 in Florida, because it was assumed that people that had first time offenses with drugs, or low-level drug users could resist future drug use by this intervention than sending them to get locked up without any treatment. It was also assumed that the quicker treatments began after the initial arrest, the less time

20. The following are trends in substance abuse treatment today except for A. chain smoking regarded as an addiction B.human rights seen as a practical philosophy C.counseling of clients in moderate drinking D.public opinion favoring more imprisonment of drug users ANS:D PG42 21. The drug court movement promotes what action with individuals whose legal problems are related to their addiction? A. decarceration – treatment in the community B. incarceration – treatment in the prison system C. requirement to serve out the remainder of prison term, in case of relapse D. moving clients into “wet house”. ANS:A PG46

Drug courts, and other recovery programs hold promise for retaining offenders involved with drugs in treatment services (SAMHSA, 2014, p.131-132). The first drug court formed in 1989 in Southern Florida. The change in the criminal justice system came when, tired of seeing the same offenders appear before the court under the same or similar charges. The group of professionals in Miami-Dade County combined drug treatment programs with criminal justice structure and authority of the judicial system (Franco, C. 2010). Since then, over 2,000 drug court programs have been adopted in communities across the country, though each court houses its own eligibility requirements, making it somewhat difficult to account for the success of drug courts as a

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.

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 drug courts primary goals include abstinence from drug use and reduction of recidivism. They work to increase community safety and awareness, life skills, and create a sense of well-being.

This year, a drug court will be created at the Melbourne Magistrates Court, Farrah Tomazin writes. This implementation is in conjunction with the Australian Government’s Ice Action Plan, in hopes to halt Australia’s growing methamphetamine issue. The proceedings of a drug court begin with identification of offenders in need of drug treatment, following with community

Drug court is also known to reduce recidivism rates. This was done through participation of the defendants and justice professionals who are involved in the program. The issues defendants have been face with are address when they are sent to drug court. Most defendants that come into the criminal justice system are faced with depression, homelessness, lack of education, lack of employment, medical and mental health issues, poor motivation, lack of family support and community support.

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.

Reduced health care coverage for substance abuse treatment has resulted in a diminished number of these programs, and the average length of stay under managed care review is much shorter than in early programs. Often, drug/alcohol abusers come into contact with the criminal justice system earlier than other health or social systems, and intervention by the criminal justice system to engage the individual in treatment may help interrupt and shorten a career of drug use. Treatment for the criminal justice-involved drug abuser or drug addict may be delivered prior to, during, after, or in lieu of incarceration.

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.

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

This new dynamic was seen initially in 1971 by the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) spearheaded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The survey indicated that many illegal drug users were employed full or part time. The initial survey was used to try and understand the scope of the problem,

The data used for this study was compiled by two self-reporting agencies, the National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse and the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health, who supplied socio-demographic information for the time periods of 1992 to 2002. This information was fundamental in identifying variables in the target groups; specifically, low educated unmarried women without children. Additionally, drug related data collected by government bureaus and emergency providers from 1992 to 2002 was instrumental in facilitating the researchers in gathering, interpreting, and summarizing the number of adult women who were arrested, incarcerated, or treated medically, as a direct result of drug-related incidents. The National Corrections Reporting Programs, the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and the Drug Abuse Warning Network were all credited with collecting essential data that made this research study feasible.

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