State of Florida Drug Courts, Capstone Project Example

As progresses in technology, have taken place, so has progress in the science of pharmaceuticals. The use of illicit pharmaceutical reached an apex in the late `1980s and the first drug court was formed.  The drug courts were formed out of the American criminological perspective. In the American criminological perspective, there are six primary aspects of legal reflection upon which the theories of criminal law are based. These six aspects are social strain theory, social functions, social framework theory, psychological theory, biological theory and classical theory. The Florida drug courts fall within the domain of the classical, psychological and biological criminological theories (Brown et al., 2010).

In the classical theory of criminology, individuals are responsible and accountable for their actions. The basic aspect of the classical theory is that individuals will seek to fulfill their own pleasure while calculating the benefits and the consequences of the risks involved. The purpose of the courts in the classical perspective is to require that the offender make amends for the wrongs which were committed against society. The psychological school of thought conveys the idea that mental deficiencies are the causal attribute of criminal activities. Many defendants have sought defense in the criminal justice system by means of insanity. This concept is rooted in the psychological theory of criminal justice (Brown et al., 2010).

The conventional drug courts function upon the biological theories of criminology and in the domains which are incorporated in the social strain theories. The fundamental rational of the drug courts is to address the physical, psychological, and emotional state of someone who is addicted which caused the offender to commit criminal activities in order to fuel the addictions. The rational which is the foundation of the drug courts states that the most effect manner of diminishing recidivisms in neighborhoods is to provide a cure for the addicted individual. If the addiction can be addressed and cured, the individual would not need to commit criminal acts in order to feed a narcotics or alcohol habit (Brown et al., 2010).

The theoreticalfoundation of Florida’ drug court is based on the application of therapeutic justice. The significant development in the establishment of the drug treatment courts have been defined by means of the interdisciplinary characteristics. Conventionally, the areas of therapeuticjusticewhich are applied in the Florida drug courts review the traditionally overlooked application of the law on the emotional and psychological well-being of the drug offender.  It is acknowledged for those who are and those who are not in concurrence with the establishment of drug courts for therapeutic intervention for narcotics related offenses that the law is a social agent which exerts results on the psychological domains of the narcotics related offenders (Miller, 2009).

In addition, the theory of therapeutic jurisprudence and therapeutic justice review the participation of the law’s capacity as a therapeutic agency for the narcotics related offenders and the substantial potential that the legal system exercises in social reformation. The theory of therapeutic justice upon which the drug courts are founded examines the application of law, not as it is defined in textbooks; inasmuch as its application and effect on the narcotics related offenders, the victims and the society (Miller, 2009).

Assumptions

There exist four conventional moral justifications for the administration of government inflicted punishment of narcotics relatedoffenders. The primary assumption is the incapacitation of the offender in order to deter the offenders’ capacity of doing greater harm to members of the society. The second moral justification for the administration of government inflicted punishment of the narcotics related offenders is rehabilitation of the individual in order to facilitate the narcotics related offenders reinsertion into society. The rehabilitative theory delineates that the narcotics offender may not have had control of his person due to the attributes of being under the influences of narcotics. The rehabilitative theory is one of the foundational assumptions which caused the conception of the drug court concept (O’Hear, 2009; Rosenthal, 2002).

The third moral justification of the administration of government administrated punishment on the narcotics related offender is deterrence. In establishing a precedence of consequence for the behaviors which had been exhibited by the narcotics related offender prior to the interaction with the drug treatment courts, the aspect of deterrence serves as an admonishment for those who would model their future behavior on the narcotics offender’s previous behavior. The fourth moral justification for the administration of government inflicted punishment on the narcotics offenders in the drug courts are retribution. The narcotics offender must be mad e to provide restitution for the damages caused to the victims of the narcotics related crimes. The retribution is performed in order to demonstrate the condemnation that the society holds for the act which violated the law and to negate the advantage which had been gained by the narcosis offender in committing the criminal act. This perception is attributed with the idea of Lex talionis (Rosenthal, 2002)

The feasibility and the reasonableness of these justifications for the government inflicted punishment of narcotics related offenders are reliant upon three assumptions. These assumptions are the acknowledged theories on human nature, the availability and existence of information which either reinforces or contradicts the assumptions which are held and the capacity of the society in appropriately applying the information in order to administrate the punishment of the narcotics related offender. The processes which are applied in order to punish a narcotics related offender can only be rationalized if they completely concur with the theoretical basis of the human characteristics which are the foundations of the theories of punishment. In the circumstance that the theories which support thepunishment of the narcoticsrelated offender and the real evidence which is pertinent to the narcotics offender are not in alignment, the circumstance can derive an unfair, ineffective and incoherentimplementation of punishment against the narcotics offender.  These types of circumstances require a review of the foundational logic which is the framework of the category of punishment (Rosenthal, 2002).

Definition of Terms

Criminal justice- A conventional term for the process by which criminal behavior which is committed is researched, arrests are conducted, evidence collected, charges are rendered, defensive arguments are raised, sentences are given and the appropriate punishment is applied (Nolo, 2014).

Drug court- an innovative court which was conceived in the City of Miami, County of Dade in 1989. This category of court in the criminal justice system is designed to give appropriate treatment to narcotics related offenders and provide then with rehabilitation options from drug abuse (Rosenthal, 2002).

Litigation- The process of creating and fulfilling a legal case (Nolo, 2014).

Narcotics- Illicit drugs which are applied in order to numb or modify the senses (Nolo, 2014).

Offender- a semi legal term which implies someone who has received a conviction for criminal activities (Nolo, 2014).

Penal- Relating to the laws which indicate criminal behavior and punishment (Nolo, 2014). Sanction- penalty (Nolo, 2014).

Therapeutic jurisprudence- the review and perspective of law which relates to narcotics related offenders (Rosenthal, 2002).

Therapeutic justice- a system of law which is directed toward the emotional and psychological wellbeing of the narcotics related offender (Rosenthal, 2002).

References.

Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F. – A. , Geis, G. (2010). Criminology: explaining crime and its content, 7^th edition. New Providence, NJ: Matthew Bender and Company.

criminal justice.2014. In Nolo’ s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal definitions.com. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/S

litigation.2014. In Nolo’ s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal definitions.com. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/S

Miller, E..J. (2009). Drugs, courts and the new penology. Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev,. 20(417).

narcotics. 2014. In Nolo’s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal definitions.com. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/S

offender. 2014. In Nolo’s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal definitions.com. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/S

O’Hear, M. M. (2009). Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice. Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev., 20(463).

penal..2014. 2014. In Nolo’s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal definitions.com. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/S

Rosenthal, J. T. A. (2002). Therapeutic jurisprudence and drug treatment courts. In Nolan, J. (Ed), Drug courts in theory and in practice. New York: Walter de Guyter, Inc.

sanction.2014. In Nolo’s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal definitions.com. Retrieved February 18, 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/S