Are Drug Courts a Solution to the Drug Problem - Research Paper Example

? Are Drug Courts a Solution to the Drug Problem? Drug court work just like contemporary courts, but mainly focus on criminal cases and behaviors related with the use and sale of drugs. Many researches in the past indicate that these courts play significant roles in the criminal justice system. These courts help to treat and rehabilitate drug offenders by providing proper supervision and rehabilitation in order to help drug victims to do away with addiction to drugs. This paper aims at examining whether such researches are true and finds out the effects of drug courts on participants and the entire society. It also examines the policies and programs used to refer offenders to treatment programs and fight the problems caused by drug courts. This paper proves that drug courts help to reduce recidivism rates in various states and help to save taxpayers money by reducing costs. However, some researches show that there are negative effects such as increasing more crime and additional court monitoring costs. This paper bases its argument on the notion that is difficult to determine whether the positive effects of drug courts outweigh the negative effects. Introduction One of the most vital issues in drug courts is to know whether these courts have any effects and whether the effects are long-term effects on offenders who pass through the court processes. It is not easy to access the long-term effects of these courts because of the impeding issues that relate to the results attained after offenders pass through the processes of drug courts. For instance, it is quite challenging to find whether the observed pattern of encouraging results reflects a suppression effects on drug related crimes (Mitchell, 2011). During the processes involved in drug court participation, the examination of numerous outcomes mainly focuses on recidivism. It is vital to note that there is a probability that drug courts can suppress drug related behaviors and crimes while the offender is active in the court program. Likewise, an actively involved offender in the treatment program can change his discharge from a drug treatment program after the removal of behavioral contingencies (Mitchell, 2011). Another issue that makes it difficult to assess whether the observed effects continue for a long period. Since most drug courts fail to monitor the abstinence of drug related offenders from drug usage after undergoing treatment programs, it could be difficult to determine the long-term effects of drug court participation than determining the short-term effects. For instance, it could be difficult to determine whether drug court programs help to reduce substance abuse, criminal victimization recidivism, and other factors associated with drug abuse. In addition, it is hard to estimate the effectiveness of drug courts because these courts are varied depending on their countries and constitutions of these countries (Mitchell, 2011). Effects of Three Strikes legislation on Criminal Behavior In spite of the impeding challenges to the effectiveness of drug courts, most people consider drug courts as the most effective strategy for reducing criminal activities and recidivism among offenders. There is a significant increase in the number of drug courts since the initiation of the first drug court in Florida, 1989 (King & Pasquarella, 2009). This is a clear indication of the importance of such courts in the society, hence their spread throughout the whole country and other states. The participation of drug courts helps to reduce criminal behaviors according to a research conducted by (Mitchell, 2011). Drug courts reduce the probability of an offender to repeat the same offense leading to a reduction in the overall number of criminal undertakings. Drug courts play a significant role in reducing drug related crimes such as illegal possession of drugs and sales offenses. One remarkable effect of the participation of drug courts is the significant reduction of the number of drivers driving under the influence of alcohol. In addition, these courts help to fight property related crimes such as robbery. Previous research shows that successful graduates for the drug court programs for adults lasted for approximately fifteen months, while graduates who failed typically dropped out after a short period (Rossman et al, 2011). However, the study conducted by Rossman et al (2011) shows an improvement in the effects of drug courts on the life of offenders. The research results indicate that the impact of drug court programs on criminal behavior is long lasting. However, this is not a justifiable conclusion because the period taken by research to gather information could be inadequate. There is a possibility that if the research takes longer period then participants of drug court programs could resume their criminal behavior leading to re-arrest. Three Strikes legislation help to reduce recidivism In a research conducted by Mitchell (2011) on the effects of drug courts on juveniles and adults, it is evident that the effects are positive, but this varies depending on the type of court. One of the notable positive effects of adult drug courts is the reduction of recidivism on offenders. There are over ninety independent evaluations conducted in the past on the effects of drug courts. An overwhelming majority of them indicates that participants of drug court programs exhibit a reduction in recidivism compared to offenders who are anon-participants of drug court programs. In addition, experimental evaluation of the undertakings of drug courts shows that these courts consistently find a decrease in recidivism. This is evidence that suggests that adult drug courts play a significant role in the reduction of recidivism. Consequently, this evidence cautiously supports the effectiveness of drug courts that address issues associated with drivers who drive under the influence of alcohol. This is because most drivers are adults and hence a reduction in the number of adult drug offenders will consequently lead to a reduction in the number of adults driving under the influence of drugs. Quasi-experiments strongly prove that DWI drug courts play a key role in the reduction of drug related crimes and recidivism (Mitchell et al 2011). Other researches show non-statistically significant and a small decline in recidivism. This clearly indicates the effectiveness of drug courts in the reduction of offenses related to the use of drugs. A vigorous evaluation suggests that juvenile drug courts have relatively negligible effect on recidivism. There is a need for additional evaluation that uses experimental methods to resolve the ambiguity that surrounds the effects DWI drug courts. Nevertheless, Three Strikes legislation helps to reduce the repeat offenders even after undergoing treatment or training to extinguish criminal behavior. In spite of several studies suggesting that drug courts have a significant effect in the reduction of recidivism, absolute comparison of such studies is difficult. This is because the definition of recidivism and the period taken to conduct these studies and measure the level of recidivism reduction usually differ. Critically thinking, there is a great possibility that some evaluations made by some drug courts may gauge re-arrest rates without a vivid consideration of the consequences of distinguishing participants under current supervision and participants who have completed the drug court program. Therefore, it is not easy to quantify the effectiveness of the drug court processes involved because some of the graduate participants of drug court programs exhibit recidivism rates, which are lower than those of drug court dropouts. This brings about the issue of program design in the whole process of taking drug related offenders through the drug court programs. It is obvious that drug court processes, programs, and procedures differ from state to state; hence, the results of one research carried on a particular drug court may not be enough to justify the effects of drug courts. This is because some procedures for given drug courts in given states could be more or less effective than those in a different drug court in a given state. Therefore, this renders the issue of whether drug courts are effective or not effective to be controversial if we consider drug court program designs that differ with diverse states worldwide. This call for drug courts that experience less effects on re-arrest than desired to pay attention and address their program design to improve on the effectiveness of drug courts in eliminating drug related crimes and behaviors. The participation of drug courts in curbing criminal behaviors brings about change in the lives of offenders by assisting them to come out of their drug addiction. Since the use of drugs is the main cause believed to lead users to criminal behaviors, drug courts succeed in eradicating these behaviors by identifying the drugs used by the defendant. It is true that most drug courts use extremely strong disincentives to illegal undertakings by the use of aggressive judicial supervision, incentives, and sanctions. However, it may not be necessarily true that these interventions lead to total recovery from the use of drugs (Rossman et al, 2011). This creates a doubt on whether the effects of drug courts are positive or negative since the impact seem to lie on both sides. Three Strikes legislation costs effects. Drug courts also play a significant role in reducing costs and increasing benefits associated with the treatment of criminal behaviors as a result of drugs. An evaluation of the total benefits and costs of drug courts in the United States show that there is a nationwide saving of taxpayer money because of the participation of drug courts in curbing drug related crimes (King & Pasquarella, 2009). This is evident since a comparison between the use of drug courts and simple incarceration and probation in various states in the United States show a significant saving in related costs. Cost saving is probably due to the fact that drug courts help to reduce arrests, costs related to case processing, costs related to jail accommodation and costs related to victimization. This remarkable reduction of major costs for a court process to go through means that the taxpayer will not spend money or will spend little on criminal cases associated with drug offenses. Even though not every drug criminal diverted to a drug court goes to prison, there is a significant decrease in the costs incurred because of incarcerated individuals. According to King & Pasquarella (2009), the estimated annual cost per inmate is around twenty three thousand US dollar, while the estimated average amount of annual costs for individuals who participate in drug court programs is approximately four thousand and three hundred US dollars. This shows that drug court in the United States help to save taxpayers’ money by approximately eighty-one percent. However, a cost-benefits analysis in a research conducted by Rossman et al (2011) shows contradicting information on the issue of cost reduction as a result of drug court participation. The research focused on the impact of individual drug court program participants. The results of the research suggest that average drug participants cause more harm to society than the subsequent benefits. However, these harms are lower for participants of drug court programs than those of other inmates, but the information collected is statistically insignificant making it difficult to assess whether drug courts are effective or not effective. This leads me to the conclusion that, while drug courts are effective in reducing costly criminal offenses, they are also expensive enough to offset the associated costs. These courts increase numerous costs such as in drug treatment, court-related monitoring processes, and halfway house usage. Rossman et al (2011) also claims that drug court appear to have less effect in health and labor market participation where there is a possibility of having great benefits. Therefore, though drug courts help to improve outcomes on different measures, the estimated improvement may not be statistically significant; hence, the issue of the effectiveness of drug courts remains controversial. This is because the results of different researchers differ in terms of definition, amount of period taken to gather information, the population sample, and methods of collecting data. Remedy for Three Strikes legislation There are two key models of drug courts. The first model is the deferred prosecution program, which is a diversion setting whereby defendants must meet certain eligibility requirement. After successfully meeting these requirements, the court diverts the defendants to the drug court system before pleading to charge. For this model, the court does not allow defendants to plead guilty and defendants who complete this drug court program do not face further prosecution. However, failure to complete this program leads to further prosecution. Post-adjudication is the second drug court model where by offenders must plead guilty, but the court suspends or defers the charges while the defendants participate in the court program. After completing the program successfully, the court may reduce or totally exclude the defendants from sentence. However, failing to meet the requirements may cause the court to return the defendants to the court and sentence him because of the guilty plea (King & Pasquarella, 2009). Both the differed prosecution program and post-adjudication models have had significant impacts on the lives of drug court participants. Some of the procedures, policies and programs used by these courts to convict, rehabilitate and treat drug related offenders usually cause unintended effects on the drug court systems. Sometimes advocates may forget or purposefully fail to notice the disappointing lessons, abuses, and meager track proof of rehabilitation that leads to more castigatory justice aims in many states that make use of drug courts. Policies used by Judges to refer offenders in Three Strikes legislation One of the exceptional features of the drug court model is how judges interact with drug court participants and how they decide to refer drug offenders to the out treatment programs. Judges have to follow appropriate drug policies, which should be correctional and resource sensitive policies that reduce risks and recidivism (Lawrence & Lyons, 2011). Judges must ensure that corrections policies mainly focus on a major role of preventing offenders from continuing with the same criminal activities after being referred to out-treatment programs. Judges should also ensure that corrections policies do not have adverse effects on either the offenders of the citizens of a given state. Corrections policies address issues related to gender, race and geography to prevent biasness in referring offenders to out-treatment programs. On the other hand, Judges use resource sensitive drug policies to focus on supervision and services offered on offenders. This policy ensures that offenders do not miss the necessary resources during the rehabilitation and treatment process. Conclusion In conclusion, numerous researches consistently report that the participation of drug courts lead to the achievement of several benefits to participants and the society. This paper indicates that participation of drug courts has to some extend helped to solve the problem of drugs. This is because of the significant reduction of recidivism as well as the significant saving of taxpayers’ money in several states of the world. However, it is impossible to estimate the effectiveness of these courts in the reduction of drug usage and drug-related crimes. This is because of the varying methodologies and legal structures used by different courts from different states. Some researchers show positive effects, while others show negative effects. Therefore, the issue of whether drug courts reduce drug usage remains controversial. There is need to come up with relevant policies or amend existing policies that govern drug court process for effective achievement of the goals of drug courts. I would recommend that researchers should uniformly track the criminal history of drug court participants. This may answer some questions regarding the effects of drug courts and related policies, programs and procedures. I it would also be helpful to follow up drug court graduate to know their demographics and their recidivism rates in the following years. The society and the government should consider the welfare, long-term effects of some of the sentences given to criminals found guilty of committing petite drug-related offenses. I propose that state governments should abolish cruel laws such as the Three Strike legislation. Instead, governments should encourage the use of rehabilitation and treatment programs to help offenders to regain their personality without facing unnecessary trials that lead to cruel punishments, sometimes death. References Bull, M. (2003). Just treatment: a review of international programs for the diversion of drug related offenders from the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Review Franco, C. (2010). Drug Courts: Background, Effectiveness, and Policy Issues for Congress. Darby, PA: DIANE Publishing King, S. R. & Pasquarella, J. (2009). Drug Courts: A review of the evidence. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project. Lawrence, A., Lyons, D. (2011). Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy. A Report of the NCSL Sentencing and Corrections Work Group. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A. & MacKenzie, D. L. (2011). Drug Court’s Effects on Criminal Offending for Juveniles and Adults. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Rossman, S. B., Roman, J. K., Zweig, J. M., Remel, M. & Christine, H. (2011). The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts. 4, 367 Read More