Limited Success of Drug Courts - Essay Example

 It is the basic assumption of the current investigation, that while drug courts are a unique way to deal with chemically dependent offenders, they seem to have limited success. A judge's time and discretionary authority could be better spent away from mandatory minimum sentencing, or rehabilitation, rather than punitive punishments for those with addiction problems. There are plenty of people who are addicted to drugs who are not violent in the least, and do not pose harm to others in society. Adherents of mandatory sentencing believe that it reduces crime, is fair for any criminals, and ensures uniformity in sentencing: “Potential criminals and repeat offenders are expected to avoid crime because they can be certain of their sentence if they are caught. Opponents of mandatory sentencing argue that judges lose control over sentencing and cannot apply discretion given the particular facts of a case” (Mandatory, 2008). This follows a theory of deterrence, in which the indiviudal fears punishment, and therefore does not commit the crime, because they fear scrutiny or action taken against them, once they commit the crime. The overall problem which the current investigation is looking at is how to confront the issue of drug use and abuse in society; whether it is better to punish or rehabilitate drug crimes, and how to solve the drug problem is a big challenge. Mandatory minimum sentences under the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act tend to favor the perspective that it is better to punish than to rehabilitate. “In addition to possibly affecting the demand for drugs, prohibition is likely to have an effect on the supply. Prohibition increases the costs of manufacturing, transporting, and distributing drugs, since suppliers must take steps to avoid detection by law enforcement authorities” (Miron, 2001). In this society, the common presentation of crime often links non-violent and violent crimes together in terms of causality. Many law enforcement agencies have concentrated on reducing the harm that drugs can cause. Still others propose the legalization of drugs for solely medical purposes, for example, so heroin addicts could receive clean heroin and sanitized needles, or so that people suffering from certain conditions could be prescribed marijuana. The decriminalization or legalization of drugs is a controversial issue to which there are many facets, but generally, the main viewpoints on the issue can be expressed in the oppositional terms of legalization, rehabilitation, punishment, and prohibition, with either side of the argument having its proponents, often in the same field. Basically, the mandatory minimum laws under the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act sought to place the issue of crime, such as drug crime and gun crimes, within the nature of basic goals of criminology. In other words, the specific issues of this Act can be compared to overall goals in law enforcement and corrections. “Mandatory sentencing are based on two goals—deterrence and incapacitation. The primary purposes of modest mandatory prison terms are specific deterrence, which applies to already sanctioned offenders, and general deterrence, which aims to deter prospective offenders” (Kahn, 2008). There is also the associated issue that mandatory minimum sentencing shows an overall bias in society, which widens the scope of the issue, when it comes to the historical tendency of the US to oppress minorities through legislation. For example, under the Act, many have criticize that powder cocaine often gets less of a sentence than crack cocaine. “Researchers found that African Americans received longer sentencings than whites, not because of differential treatment by judges but because they constituted the large majority of those convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine” (Kahn, 2008). This shows an associated side issue with the drug policy having negative impacts on a particular population, just because they happen to be minority or socio economically challenged. In terms of expanding the scope of the issue, from this regard mandatory minimum sentences may actually discriminate against chemically dependent people who grow up without significant opportunities for education or to better themselves legitimately, and they are also subject to prejudice. This is shown by the corrupt police who harass them, and it is shown by gang culture and its draw on them to give them the power to fight back, which their parents can’t give them. Society as a mainstream is prejudiced against many minority populations from the start, and unfair sentencing guidelines further targeting them shows what may be easily called institutional racism. This belief that is characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior, is also a social-psychological sideline highlighting the tendency of some individuals to view out-groups as being a threat due largely to pervasive stereotyping stemming from lack of experience with the perceived out-groups. In terms of the scope of its accomplishments and goals, the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act basically established tougher sentencing guidelines, including sentences for drug offenders. “The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved. After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners” (Wiklins, 1991). As mentioned, one of the main establishments of the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act in terms of its relation to drugs is mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines basically set and maintain minimum blanket policy sentencing procedures for certain crimes, often based on the amount of drugs that an individual is arrested with. In many states such as Michigan and Florida, mandatory minimum sentences have historically been very high, some say inordinately high, leading to those who have a substance abuse problem and are caught with relatively small amounts of a substance, being deferred to harsh mandatory minimum sentences. “The central question is whether criminal justice official’s discretionary choices in the application of mandatory sentencing laws are made in a racially neutral manner. Results of particular studies are relevant… sentencing differences are associated with the offender’s race” (Kahn, 2008) Mandatory minimum sentencing started as a measure to limit judges from making discretionary rulings, and it was touted when it was first accepted as a strong anti-crime measure and a big step forward in the war on drugs. But like many steps that were supposed to be progressive, mandatory minimum sentencing really only filled the corrections system up with a lot of non-violent offenders doing way too much time for possession charges. Following a backlash of complaint against harsh sentencing, the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act established clear guidelines under which judges’ discretion was limited. These guidelines are hampered by the use of mandatory minimum sentences, which do not allow judges to make any considerations about the individual at stake. Drug courts, especially those using mandatory minimums, have had limited success; it is time to try something new. REFERENCE Khan, S (2008) Mandatory sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy and Planning. Miron, J (2001). The economics of drug legalization and prohibition. Social Research. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2267/is_3_68/ai_80310014?tag=content;col1 Wilkins, W (1991). Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Criminal Law Review. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3750836700h3l89/ Mandatory minimums (2009). http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/ Read More