As we know today the war on drugs have failed, not only are nonviolent drug offenders risking their lives in prison, their causing corrections facilitates to be overcrowded and underfunded. It would seem that there should be other options rather than just sending nonviolent drug offenders to prison. “There is no evidence that imprisonment reduces the likelihood of recidivism. Instead, we find compelling evidence that offenders who are sentenced to prison have higher rates of recidivism and recidivate more quickly than do offenders placed on probation.” (Spohn, C., & Holleran, D, 2002) There is one option thou, Drug treatment court. With drug court you get the treatment you need to battle the addiction. Although it may sound like a good thing to keep non violent criminals out of prison the fact of the matter is, Are Drug treatment courts more effective than the traditional courts? To answer that question we must understand what drug treatment court is, according to Manitoba courts. Drug treatment court is “available to offenders charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act (CDSA) with drug-related offences such as possession, possession for purposes of trafficking, and trafficking, and/or non-violent Criminal Code offences.” Drug treatment court is a form of therapeutic justice under the problem solving court system. The goals of Drug treatment court are to reduce the revolving door of crime and reduce the harm and crime associated with addiction. Many drug users often commit various crimes like petty theft or robbery to afford their drug addiction. Now that we know what drug treatment courts goals can we truly say that its more effective than regular court? Not yet. According to a study done by the justice policy institute called Treatment or Incarceration (Doug McVay, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg) There were two findings that support drug treatment court over the regular judicial system. First “Treatment is less expensive than imprisonment.” Mcvay et al evaluates a study done by the centre for substance abuse treatment of US department of health and safety. They found that the cost of drug treatment programs was anywhere from the range of $1800-6800 per client. That may seem like a high cost but keep in mind that the average price to house a prisoner was $64,338 for a two year term. Mcvay et al found that with the drug treatment program, it saved the state of Maryland $4,000 to $20,000 per prisoner. Along with reduced cost drug treatment court also is effective to reduce relapse and rearrest rates rather then prison. Mcvay et al observed the patterns of former members of the program and found significant progress has been made. Members of drug treatment court have reported to have less relapses than people who severed their time in a prison. Arrest rates two years after the program was substantially lower than arrest rates of people released from prison. “Up to 26% lower.” (Mcvay et al) Furthermore fact it
…show more content…
They also defined regular courts as todays legal system where prison and probation are the final outcome not therapeutic justice.
This source was in favour that drug treatment court is more effective than regular court. This source brought many facts from the state of Maryland and the USA about the benifits that drug treatment programs have had on many peoples lives compared to if prisons would of played a role.
This source concluded by stating that therapeutic justice methods like drug treatment court is much more effective and cost effective than regular …show more content…
“(Peters
While peters gives information about rearrest rates he also shares the employment rates after arrest for graduates and non graduates. “43% of graduates had full time employment,” while only 17% of non graduates had full time employment. Just like my previous source says drug treatment-based programs are more effective than our traditional court system in many ways.
Peters describes drug treatment court as a therapeutic justice method that has beneficial effects for graduates. Not just throwing them in jail, but actually helping them battle the cause of the crime the addiction.
Peters provides us with useful insight in the comparison of non graduates to graduates of the program. For example the re arrest rate or the employment rate while comparing the
They also defined regular courts as todays legal system where prison and probation are the final outcome not therapeutic justice.
This source was in favour that drug treatment court is more effective than regular court. This source brought many facts from the state of Maryland and the USA about the benifits that drug treatment programs have had on many peoples lives compared to if prisons would of played a role.
This source concluded by stating that therapeutic justice methods like drug treatment court is much more effective and cost effective than regular …show more content…
“(Peters
While peters gives information about rearrest rates he also shares the employment rates after arrest for graduates and non graduates. “43% of graduates had full time employment,” while only 17% of non graduates had full time employment. Just like my previous source says drug treatment-based programs are more effective than our traditional court system in many ways.
Peters describes drug treatment court as a therapeutic justice method that has beneficial effects for graduates. Not just throwing them in jail, but actually helping them battle the cause of the crime the addiction.
Peters provides us with useful insight in the comparison of non graduates to graduates of the program. For example the re arrest rate or the employment rate while comparing the