Drug Courts and Sanctions, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Drug courts are generally seen as a way in which to rehabilitate individuals who are using or selling drugs rather than sentencing them to long prison terms. This helps the offender, the state, the courts, and the many taxpayers in many states. Drug courts have been a way in which the criminal justice system has decided to combat the prevalence of drugs and the offenders who perpetually use and sell drugs on the streets. This paper will spread light on the definition and history of drug courts, the drug court process, its sanctions, the disadvantages of drug courts as well as take the time to discuss any other strategies that may work in helping drug offenders from recidivating.

Definition and History

Drug courts have been around for many years and have aimed to help alleviate some of the stress within the criminal justice system. Drug Courts help approximately 1.2 million drug-addicted people that are currently dealing with the justice system in some way (National Association of Drug Court Professionals, n.d.). “Since 1989, drug courts have spread throughout the country; there are now over 1,600 such courts operating in all 50 states” (King and Pasquarella, 2009, p. 1). These drug courts were put into place in order to combat drug crimes by giving the offender other options than prison. “Drug courts offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration for criminal offenders with a history of substance abuse” (Gallagher, 2013, p. 241). Miami-Dade County, Florida was the first to establish a drug court. King and Pasquarella (2009) give better reasoning in reference to why the drug court was started in the first place in the following paragraph:

This special court was designed to bring drug treatment more fully into the criminal justice system, treating offenders with a history of drug abuse for their addiction, while simultaneously ensuring supervision, and sanctions when needed, from the courts. The movement for an alternative court to sentence drug offenders emerged from the rapidly evolving reality that the nation’s decision to address drug abuse through law enforcement mechanisms would continue to pose significant challenges for the criminal court system (1).

Many of the drug courts not only help adults, but work just as well for juveniles. Juveniles are seen as individuals who are more likely to accept and learn from rehabilitation. According to Thomas A. Jacobs, J.D (2000), these juveniles, who successfully complete drug courts or a juvenile court, in general, never see the justice system again. This is exactly what the criminal justice system wants and the drug courts continue to help them achieve this goal every year.

Drug Court Process

According to Ashcroft, Daniels, and Herraiz (2004), “drug courts usually employ a multi-phased treatment process, generally divided into a stabilization phase, an intensive treatment phase, and a transition phase.” (p. 1). The stabilization phase normally consists of mainly detoxification for the offender. It may also include education and treatment assessments in order to help the offender understand the concepts of treatment and what needs to occur in order to stay on track with his or her sentencing (Ashcroft et al., 2004). The intensive treatment phase usually involves individual and group therapy and other forms of treatment where it is available. However, as Ashcroft et. al (2004) state, the treatment phase begins in the courtroom and continues throughout the person’s therapy sessions. The transition phase does just that. It transitions the offender back into society. It “may emphasize social reintegration, employment and education, housing services, and other aftercare activities” (Ashcroft et al., 2004, p. 1).

Sanctions and Advantages

There are many sanctions in which the courts impose on both adult and juvenile drug offenders within the drug courts. These sanctions are normally alternatives to imprisonment as the court’s main goal is to keep these offenders out of the prison system. These sanctions can include rehabilitative services, probation, community service, fines, curfews, and the use of ankle bracelets just to name a few (National Drug Court Institute, n.d.). These are all common sanctions for offenders who have gone through the drug court process. Some of them are little more intense while others are not. However, the sanctions used by judges do tend to work for many offenders and for the state as well. The following study illustrates this in the accompanying paragraph:

A study commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy found AOD treatment is significantly more cost-effective than domestic law enforcement, interdiction, or “source-country control” in reducing drug use in the United States. Research indicates that the length of time an offender spends in treatment is related to the level of AOD abuse and criminal justice involvement (Ashcroft et al., 2004, p. 7-8).

There are many sanctions that could be discussed and gone through in detail; however, some of the most common are listed in this paragraph. It is just as important to discuss how these sanctions benefit the offenders and society at large.

First, there are many states that save more money by sending a drug offender to drug court rather than prison. Secondly, more drug offenders are accepting the sanctions they are given, accepting treatment, and never recidivating again. Also, since there are fewer of these offenders serving jail or prison sentences, the taxpayers of each state aren’t spending their tax dollars on things that could be prevented. Unfortunately, just as there are advantages to drug courts, there are also disadvantages or those that people deem to be disadvantages.

Disadvantages of Drug Courts

Though there are not as many disadvantages as there are advantages to the implementation of drug courts, there are still some that should be discussed in some detail. First, many believe that, by giving alternative sentencing for low-level drug offenders, there are many more people being arrested on drug charges. For example, Judge Morris Hoffman of the Denver District Court states that “arrest numbers for drug crimes increased almost three-fold in the two years following the establishment of the drug court” (King and Pasquarella, 2009, p. 17). This is due, in large part, because police officers were encouraged to make more arrests because there was an additional resource to be used by the criminal justice system. Secondly, many are concerned that people of color are still being targeted more based on specific studies. For example, “by 2003, African Americans were arrested for drug law violations at a rate 238 percent higher than whites and African Americans and Latinos comprised two-thirds of people incarcerated for drug law violations – even though they use and sell drugs at rates comparable to whites” (Drug Policy Alliance, 2011, p. 9). Next, many believe that a treatment setting is more beneficial for drug offenders than a drug court since many offenders who relapse in a treatment setting tend to get more intensive services whereas those in the drug courts tend to only get temporary treatment or are removed from the program altogether and sentenced to prison anyway (Drug Policy Alliance, 2011). Finally, some even state that the drug courts do not necessarily cut costs for the system. As stated, these are disadvantages; however, they could all easily be seen in a different light if other strategies were implemented.

Strategies

The Drug Policy Alliance has many ways in which the drug courts could improve their overall missions and goals. Many believe that drug courts are not health-centered, but rather centered on keeping people out of prison to lower costs. The Drug Policy Alliance (2011) suggests that the criminal justice system should “reserve drug courts for serious offenses” (p. 18) and focus on making them more health-oriented. The Drug Policy Alliance (2011) also suggests not sentencing drug users to prison or sentencing them with criminal penalties. The reasoning for this is stated in the following paragraph:

Programs that provide alternatives to incarceration for a substantial portion of people convicted of a petty drug law violation improve the utilization of limited resources and allow the criminal justice system to focus on matters of greater public safety (The Drug Policy Alliance, 2011, p. 19).

Finally, The Drug Policy Alliance states that the justice system should invest in public health treatment. By investing in public health treatment, the justice system is investing in the offenders as well as others living in the community. If offenders are getting the treatment that they need, they are going to be less likely to continue to use drugs. In addition, The Drug Policy Alliance (2011) states that “they reduce the harms associated with drug use, prevent crimes against people and property, and cut associated costs” (p. 22). This organization is not keen on abstinence-only programs as the organization’s main goal is to provide drug users with ways in which they can learn to cope without drugs and multiple treatment sessions are the organizations way of doing so.

Conclusion

Though drug courts have their disadvantages, many of them have helped the criminal justice system, offenders, and the country at large. Since the beginning of the first drug court establishment, there are more states that confirm that they have saved money and have helped many individuals with their drug addictions. With more offenders of low-level drug crimes being sanctioned to probation or other sentencing assignments, there are more people getting help for their addictions and being rehabilitated than there are people actually going to prison for these crimes. With the proper funding and the proper staff working together to help rehabilitate these individuals, the advantages of the drug courts clearly outweigh the disadvantages of them.

References

Ashcroft, J., Daniels, D. J., & Herraiz, D. S. (2004). Defining drug courts: The key components.

Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1-24. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/205621.pdf

Gallagher, J. R. (2013). Drug court graduation rates: Implications for policy advocacy and future research. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 31, 241-253. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07347324.2013.772019

Jacobs, T. (2000). Teens on trial. (p. 81). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.

King, R. S., & Pasquarella, J. (2009, April). Drug courts: A review of the evidence. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_drugcourts.pdf

National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (n.d.). What are drug courts? Retrieved from http://www.nadcp.org/learn/what-are-drug-courts

National Drug Court Institute. (n.d.). Sanctions and incentives from operational drug courts throughout the nation. Retrieved from http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/3022.pdf

The Drug Policy Alliance. (2011). Drug courts are not the answer: Toward a health-centered approach to drug use. Retrieved from http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Drug Courts Are Not the Answer_Final2.pdf