Throughout the past few decades, drug courts have emerged as a viable policy option to treat the dramatic increase of drug offenders in the United States (Johnson, Hubbard, & Latessa, 2000). The high prevalence of drug use among offender populations and the increase in the proportion of drug offenders have been well documented (Lindquist, Krebs, & Lattimore, 2006). According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 48.4% of sentenced inmates in federal prison are serving time for drug offenses, as of September 26, 2015 (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2015). In response to the large numbers of drug offenders, the criminal justice system has implemented drug courts has an alternative approach to incarceration.
Drug treatment courts are specialized courts that target non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems (Franco, 2011). The drug court model combines a balance of authority, supervision, support and encouragement to combat substance abuse and crime. This model is designed to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime through a graduated sanctions based system by encouraging the individual to compress their subsequent deviant behavior (Franco, 2011). Evidence suggests that through this model, drug courts can successfully reduce drug use and criminal behavior, both during and after a defendant’s drug court participation (Fisher, 2014). However, critics have argued that drug courts may not reduce recidivism or relapse among drug-abusing offenders any more than conventional punishments, such as probation, incarceration, or parole (Franco, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to examine the practice and effectiveness of drug court programs for non-violent adult offenders. By drawing on deterrence theory, this paper examines the effect of drug court graduated sanctions and the inclination to indulge in deviant behavior. Empirical findings suggest intensive supervision coupled with frequent drug testing and court appearances lower the probability of future drug use and recidivism among participants. However, research differs amongst whether the effects of drug courts are long lasting. Past research designs have concentrated on short-term effects amidst participants and have failed to address long-term effects. Therefore, drug court programs, as an alternative approach to incarceration, appear more effective when the program retains enhanced treatment services, coherent definitions of graduated sanctions, and prolonged drug treatment supervision. The Evolution of Drug Courts Drug court policy in the United States has varied historically and has been at the forefront of political debate. …show more content…
Beginning in 1885 to 1925, the United States suffered its first widespread drug epidemic on addiction (Roper, 2007). Physicians freely prescribed opium and morphine as pain relievers and major pharmaceutical companies advertised products containing heroin and cocaine to citizens of all ages. It was not until the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 that congress responded to substance addiction in American by controlling the importation and dismantle of opiates. By 1925, heroin had also become illegal in the United States, and by the 1940s, illegal drugs were extremely difficult to find and the promise of eliminating illicit drug use seemed possible (Roper, 2007). However, in the 1950s and 1970s a second drug epidemic resurged in the United States as a social movement of drug use as a “badge of status and nonconformity (Roper, 2007, p. 2).” Heroin use became a trend in middle-class homes, while marijuana, LSD, and cocaine were glamorized in media pop culture as a rebellion against mainstream society. …show more content…
Drug courts are designed to improve the participants’ chances of successful reintegration into society by providing social services, such as job training and placement, education, and housing assistance (Franco, 2011). Furthermore, the drug court model functions on the premises of unifying principles known as the “key components” (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2004; Franco, 2011; Hora & Stalcup, 2007). The key components are arranged through a collaboration of enhanced information, community engagement, accountability, and treatment outcomes (Fisher, 2014). The primary purpose of these principles is to address the underlying causes of addiction by enabling the traditional criminal justice system to use a non-adversarial, non-punitive approach (Hora & Stalcup, 2007; Wolfer, 2006).
There are two paramount models of drug treatment courts: pre-adjudication and post-adjudication models, also known as pre-plea and post-plea models (Franco, 2011; Hora & Stalcup, 2007). The pre-adjudication drug treatment model operates as a diversion program in which the defendant is given the opportunity to participate in the program without entering a plea of guilty. Those defendants completing the program successfully generally receive a dismissal
Drug treatment courts are specialized courts that target non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems (Franco, 2011). The drug court model combines a balance of authority, supervision, support and encouragement to combat substance abuse and crime. This model is designed to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime through a graduated sanctions based system by encouraging the individual to compress their subsequent deviant behavior (Franco, 2011). Evidence suggests that through this model, drug courts can successfully reduce drug use and criminal behavior, both during and after a defendant’s drug court participation (Fisher, 2014). However, critics have argued that drug courts may not reduce recidivism or relapse among drug-abusing offenders any more than conventional punishments, such as probation, incarceration, or parole (Franco, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to examine the practice and effectiveness of drug court programs for non-violent adult offenders. By drawing on deterrence theory, this paper examines the effect of drug court graduated sanctions and the inclination to indulge in deviant behavior. Empirical findings suggest intensive supervision coupled with frequent drug testing and court appearances lower the probability of future drug use and recidivism among participants. However, research differs amongst whether the effects of drug courts are long lasting. Past research designs have concentrated on short-term effects amidst participants and have failed to address long-term effects. Therefore, drug court programs, as an alternative approach to incarceration, appear more effective when the program retains enhanced treatment services, coherent definitions of graduated sanctions, and prolonged drug treatment supervision. The Evolution of Drug Courts Drug court policy in the United States has varied historically and has been at the forefront of political debate. …show more content…
Beginning in 1885 to 1925, the United States suffered its first widespread drug epidemic on addiction (Roper, 2007). Physicians freely prescribed opium and morphine as pain relievers and major pharmaceutical companies advertised products containing heroin and cocaine to citizens of all ages. It was not until the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 that congress responded to substance addiction in American by controlling the importation and dismantle of opiates. By 1925, heroin had also become illegal in the United States, and by the 1940s, illegal drugs were extremely difficult to find and the promise of eliminating illicit drug use seemed possible (Roper, 2007). However, in the 1950s and 1970s a second drug epidemic resurged in the United States as a social movement of drug use as a “badge of status and nonconformity (Roper, 2007, p. 2).” Heroin use became a trend in middle-class homes, while marijuana, LSD, and cocaine were glamorized in media pop culture as a rebellion against mainstream society. …show more content…
Drug courts are designed to improve the participants’ chances of successful reintegration into society by providing social services, such as job training and placement, education, and housing assistance (Franco, 2011). Furthermore, the drug court model functions on the premises of unifying principles known as the “key components” (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2004; Franco, 2011; Hora & Stalcup, 2007). The key components are arranged through a collaboration of enhanced information, community engagement, accountability, and treatment outcomes (Fisher, 2014). The primary purpose of these principles is to address the underlying causes of addiction by enabling the traditional criminal justice system to use a non-adversarial, non-punitive approach (Hora & Stalcup, 2007; Wolfer, 2006).
There are two paramount models of drug treatment courts: pre-adjudication and post-adjudication models, also known as pre-plea and post-plea models (Franco, 2011; Hora & Stalcup, 2007). The pre-adjudication drug treatment model operates as a diversion program in which the defendant is given the opportunity to participate in the program without entering a plea of guilty. Those defendants completing the program successfully generally receive a dismissal