Are Drug Courts in United States Successful in Reducing Drug Crime and Recidivism - Term Paper Example

? Are drug courts in United s successful in reducing drug crime and recidivism? Drug related crime is a vital issue which leads to injustice andcurtails socio-cultural and economic development in the society. Within this context, drug related crime in America curbs the development process of the society as a whole. When individuals indulge in drug related crimes, the best possible way to get rid of the same is rehabilitation and follow up programs. One can easily identify that severe punishment cannot reduce drug crime because the individuals who are indulged in drug related crimes is not aware of its seriousness. Within this context, the drug courts in United States play an important role in reducing drug crime and recidivism. Thesis statement: The innovative measures adopted by the drug courts in United States prove successful in reducing drug crimes and recidivism (special references to the measures adopted by the drug courts to reduce drug crime and recidivism). I. Brief introduction to drug crimes and drug courts in US As pointed out, drug abuse leads to a number of crimes but it is not the grass root level cause for crimes. In general, illegal drugs like crack-cocaine, morphine etc leads to a number of criminal acts within the society. Within this context, drug trafficking, production and distribution leads to increase in organized crime. Stimmel (1996) opines that “Among the most prominent social effects of both illicit and licit drug use is its relationship with crime” (p.13). When more and more individuals consider drug trafficking as an easy way to earn money, the problems related to the same show increase. From a different angle of view, the drug crimes in US are interconnected with lack of economic and social support to the needy (say, the victims of drug abuse). But the traditional mode of treatment provided to the defendants is insufficient to meet their needs because it is based on punishment and long time sentencing in prisons. But Goldberg (2009), opines that “In general, people are in favor of treatment for drug abusers but do not want drug treatment centers in their neighborhoods” (p.299). Besides, the victims of drug abuse are not in need of sympathy. But effective treatment can help them to the re-enter the mainstream society without further problems in their personal and public domains. Within the context of drug crimes in US, the drug courts play an important role in reducing drug abuse related crimes. Franco (2010), states that “Drug courts were quickly adopted by communities and states struggling with the challenges that stemmed from the growing abuse and trafficking of illegal drugs” (p.5). The drug courts in US consist of number of committees, which help the offenders to have easy recovery. For instance, the judiciary, mental health department, social service organizations etc co-operate to help the offenders to be away from the clutches of drug abuse and crimes. The history of drug courts in US is interconnected with the drug court in Miami- Dade County, which was established in the year 1989. One can see that the primary aim of drug courts in US is to provide drug treatment services to the needy and to promote public safety. Besides, rehabilitation services and evaluation of the measures adopted to reduce drug related crimes are other functions of drug courts in US. Within this scenario, local support and community support are important for the smooth functioning of drug courts. In short, the drug courts aim to provide treatment facilities to the non-violent offenders and help them to re-enter the mainstream society. II. Measures taken by drug courts in reducing drug crime and recidivism First of all, the traditional legal processing in US was inefficient and inadequate to reduce drug crime and recidivism. For instance, the traditional legal processing system in US gave importance to punishment, not treatment for the victims. Within this context, treatment provided by the traditional system was effective, but high rate of dropping out reduced the effectiveness of the same. One can see that a drug court in US is the combination of court system and treatment facilities for the needy. Riczo (2003), makes clear that “Another response to the drug crimes issue was the development of about 590 drug courts that had sprung up by the end of 2000 which administer programs designed to keep drug abusers out of prison and place them instead in treatment” (p.362). The federal funding facilities helped the drug courts to put forth effective measures to reduce drug crime and recidivism. The policy of medical treatment for sick abusers and punishment for drug dealers is one of the important measures adopted by the drug courts. But Walker (2010), makes clear that “Many drug court programs, however, exclude offenders who are charged with violent crimes” (p.277). When the drug courts began to handle less-serious offenders, the judicial system became free to handle highly serious crimes. The Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914, which prohibited narcotic drugs for non-medical purposes, can be seen as the shift from punishment to treatment for the less-serious offenders. Later in 1980s, more emphasis was given to treatment but it became costly to the mass. In 1980s, crack cocaine, which was highly addictive, became available to the users. This created much problem related to drug abuse and drug related crimes. Within this context, the drug courts helped the less-serious offenders to undergo treatment without further economic burden. As the drug courts co-operated with the judicial system and prison system in US, it became acceptable to all. Some of the measures adopted by the drug courts include the supervision of programs aiming to provide treatment facilities for the offenders (say, less-serious) and issuing brochures among the communities aiming to reduce drug related crimes. Besides, the drug courts formulate programs to regain confidence and control over one’s life. The team approach, which provides treatment and rehabilitation services to the less-serious offenders, is another measure adopted the drug courts in US. III. Effectiveness of the measures taken by the drug courts First of all, the drug courts in US are able to exert legal pressure upon the defendants who are participating in different programs. This helps the drug court officials to be focused upon their aim and help the defendants to be free from the clutches of drugs. Samaha (2005), states that “Drug court graduates has substantially lower rates of criminal recidivism than offenders who are imprisoned” (p. 279). Besides, the defendants become aware of the punishment and rewards that they can have during the treatment process. This proves that drug courts are beyond mere counseling bodies and can help individuals to be serious about their lives. The drug courts in US prove effective because these courts reduce the scope of re-arrest and long time sentencing in jails. In addition, the drug courts help the defendants to return to normal lives. The encouragement provided by the drug court officials helps the defendants to acquire social stability and acceptability. The casual relationship (beyond the formal relationship in the traditional judicial system) between the defendants and the judge lead to behavioral change in defendants. To be specific, drug courts helps the sick abuser to return to normal life without external pressure or severe punishment. The assessment by the staff members of the drug courts is helpful to decide whether the defender is showing progress or not. In addition, the counseling sessions, regular tests, and recommendations for graduation leads the defendants towards normal lives. The treatment and counseling facilities provided by the drug court staff reduce emotional and physical problems faced by drug addicts. McCaffrey (1998) makes clear that “Drug courts have channeled sixty- five thousand non-violent drug-law offenders into tough, court-supervised treatment programs instead of prisons and jails” (p.37). When less-serious offenders undergo treatment under the drug courts, there exist less scope for them to mingle with drug dealers and drug addicted criminals in the jails. So, one can easily identify that the effectiveness of drug courts in US is indebted to the co-ordination and co-operation among the different agencies of the federal government which work for the wellbeing of the society as a whole. Within this context, the co-ordination of judicial system, prison system and drug courts are most important. In short, the measures adopted by the drug courts prove to be effective within scenario of public health and safety in US. Summing, the drug courts in US is an innovative step towards a society which is free from the clutches of harmful drugs. In a modern society, public safety and health is crucial for future growth, development and effective human resource management. But the traditional way of considering less-serious offenders and drug addicted criminals as equal is improper and outdated. Within this context, the innovative measures taken by drug courts in reducing drug crime and recidivism is most effective because it helps the drug abusers to return to the mainstream society. When less-serious offenders are saved from re-arrest and long time sentencing in jails, there exist high scope for them to be active and productive citizens in the society. In short, the measures adopted by the drug courts in US prove successful in reducing drug related crimes and recidivism. References Franco, C. (2010). Drug Courts: Background, Effectiveness, and Policy Issues for Congress. USA: DIANE Publishing. Goldberg, R. (2009). Drugs Across the Spectrum. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. McCaffrey, B. (1998). National Drug Control Strategy: A Ten Year Plan 1998-2007. USA: DIANE Publishing. Riczo, S. (2003). Ten Steps to American Greatness. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Stimmel, B. (1996). Drug abuse and social policy in America: the war that must be won. Binghamton, NY: Routledge. Samaha, J. (2005). Criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Walker, S. (2010). Sense and Nonsense about Crime, Drugs, and Communities. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Read More