Drug Court System and Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

? Drug court system Criminal justice system can be the procedures and means formed by the administrative government to regulate crime and punish those who go against the laws. In America, there is no single criminal justice system but several similar, independent systems. The criminal justice system is dependent on the jurisdiction in charge that can be tribal government, county, city, state or military facility. The government has always been committed to rebalance and reform the country’s criminal justice system for purposes of delivering justice for all citizens, and to safeguard the victim’s interests, communities and witnesses. Hence, the introduction of various criminal justice programs to achieve this goal (James Ernest Lessenger, 2007, p. 126). The program we focus on is the Drug court system. Drug courts can be described as judicially monitored court dockets, whose aim is to handle cases involving non-violent substance abuse offenders under the juvenile, adult, tribal and family justice systems. These courts operate under a unique model where the defense, prosecution, law enforcement, social service, probation and the judiciary work as one to assist offenders recover and become valuable citizens. Drug courts were formed in 1989 when Miami-Dade County officials formulated a thorough, community based, rehabilitation, treatment, and supervisory program for drug defendants who were non-violent, to deal with increasing recidivism rates. These exceptional courts were established to incorporate treatment of drug problems into America’s criminal justice system, handling offenders with drug abuse history for their addiction, and at the same time ensuring supervision, and sanctions where necessary, from these courts (O’Hear, 2009, p. 105). The need for these courts in sentencing drug offenders arose from the dawning reality that America’s method in combating drug abuse by law enforcement strategies continued to cause a significant challenge for the country’s criminal court system. Drug related crime has continuously been an enormous burden for the American society, one whereby supply reduction techniques have unsuccessfully eliminated. Since 1989, these courts have scattered throughout America, and their movement has reflected the desire to change the focus from attempting to address drug crimes by cutting off their supply, to combating drug demand through addiction treatment. Drug courts have used criminal justice system to combat drug addictions by an integrated set of legal and social services instead of dependence on sanctions through probation or incarceration (O’Hear, 2009, p. 128). Drug courts have achieved success, the principal one being recidivism reduction when offenders are in the program and after. Drug courts are centered on close monitoring of offenders, with increased drug testing. These courts generate savings due to reduced prison time, reduce criminal justice expenses and reduce criminality. Offenders who have passed through this program have reduced recidivism rates than those who have not. Drug courts have demonstrated the feasibility of hiring a team based, problem solving strategy to adjudicating drug offenders in a manner that improves public safety, and criminal behavior is also reduced tremendously when offenders participate in this program (David W. Neubauer, 2010, p. 284). Several components describe the operational procedure of Drug courts, but with variation on the population of the defendant background and legal issues. In their legal framework, there are two Drug court models; post adjudication programs and deferred prosecution programs. In deferred prosecution, defendants who meet particular qualification requirements are directed towards Drug court system before pleading to a particular charge. They are expected not to plead guilty, and the ones who complete the program are not prosecuted any further, but failure to finish the program leads to prosecution. In post adjudication, defendants are supposed to plead guilty, but their sentences are suspended as they enter Drug court program. Completion of the program leads to waived sentence (Samaha, 2005, p. 65). Defendants must be charged as a result of being in possession of drugs or an offense that is not violent, and should be ‘clean’ in drug tests, or have drug abuse conditions during their arrest. Drug courts that get federal funding exclude people with current, prior or current violent offense. Programs run between six months to a year, although several participants tend to stay longer (Faith E. Lutze, 2007, p. 230). They are always required to complete the program in order for them to graduate. Successful completion is contingent upon staying without arrests and being drug free for a specified time. Participants are required to continuously attend hearings with judges who monitor the individual’s progress together with clinical staff. A non compliant participant with the Drug court regulations can be punished in several ways, including increased jail time. If an individual terminates participation in a program aimed at treatment, this can result to the individual’s custody (Belenko, 2005, p. 2). According to current evaluations, Drug courts graduates, are rarely rearrested compared to other individuals who have passed through old court strategies. An outstanding aspect on Drug courts is the rate at which participants interact with judges. The role of Drug courts judges is continuing partnership with participants and continues after adjudication (David W. Neubauer, 2010, p. 294). This relationship compared to traditional courts is less formal and more individualized depending on the judges monitoring of the progress an individual is making. Therefore, this implies that a judge can play a significant role in influencing Drug court outcomes, but the impact can be different depending on those in the program. This is evidence of Drug court program that allows staff to style individualized response of graduated penalties based on every client’s individual criminal history and drug abuse. Courts with longer implementation history have had the chance to monitor several judges as they rotate through the system (O’Hear, 2009, p. 130). The modality of treatment received by Drug court participant’s impacts on their success rates. Although the diverse range, of those participating make it hard to analyze practices nationwide. It has been argued that Drug courts cannot serve best those with serious addiction problems, or those who use hard dangerous drugs. This implies that persons require different treatments depending on their drug usage histories (Samaha, 2005, p. 71). Those who have used drugs for a longer time, and those who have used it for a shorter time each require different treatment. It has been argued that Drug courts are not a solution to those who have had serious addiction problems, and, therefore, a more intensive recovery process can be recommended for these individuals. In Drug courts, backsliding can be dealt with by punishment and treatment, and a participant with several backslidings who does not comply with rules can be dismissed from their continued participation in the program and prosecuted (James Ernest Lessenger, 2007, p. 131). Studies indicate that even those who successfully complete Drug court programs and graduate still backslide and commit other crimes during recovery. In addition, individuals who use deadlier drugs, and with serious addiction problems can be neglected by Drug court due to their criminal history. The question posed is whether those who are less addicted are the ones who complete and graduate from Drug court treatment, or those who end up in jail, are the ones with serious addiction. There has also been concern on the time taken to place a participant through a Drug court program, this is because some Drug court programs have scarce treatment slots, and it is a more serious problem for women who have to wait twice the time men wait for a treatment slot (Faith E. Lutze, 2007, p. 239). The inability of Drug courts dealing with capacity issues, increases likelihood of backsliding even before a participant starts receiving treatment. The time length is also vital, as too much or too little time cannot achieve full recovery. Therefore, Drug courts should take account of diverse individuals with substance abuse troubles. Persistent drug addiction as a result of various factors, including socio-economic status, opportunity, and a patient’s environment, and drug addiction treatment should answer the complicated participant’s needs. Legal and medical assistance can be integrated with social services and counseling that combat the root cause of such abuse (Belenko, 2005, p. 3). Sanction use has caused participants to be jailed for a longer time than if they enrolled in Drug court program. Since many Drug court individuals are found guilty of offenses with no violence, most of them experience short time in jails. However, there is concern that Drug courts increase the number of arrests on drug charges instead of providing another sentencing road for arrestees (Samaha, 2005, p. 71). Law enforcement officials arrest more low level wrongdoers, since Drug courts allow additional venue for treating offenders. Following the formation of Drug courts, drug crime arrests rose, because these courts gave officers powers to perform arrests that they previously did not perform. The police are urged to arrest low level drug crimes, which they could not before due to a perception that Drug courts can be an extra resource for adjudication, as opposed to diversion meant for those who could have been arrested (Douglas B. Marlowe, 2004, p. 22). Drug courts can be aggravating the existing racial disparities in prison systems. Firstly due to the fact that, for Drug court participation, an individual should enter the system of criminal justice, racial disparities remain unaffected in arrest patterns. Secondly, the small requirement criteria disqualify people whose offenses can lead to an imprisonment and those with a rich history in crime and this particularly disadvantages African Americans. Thirdly, Drug court programs have higher chances of failing, and African Americans are more likely to backslide compared to whites due to socioeconomic status. Lastly, Drug court failures can lead to more time spent in prison than the conventional criminal court procedure (Douglas B. Marlowe, 2004, p. 25). Drug courts have achieved remarkable benefits, and can be labeled as the most vital criminal justice initiative in the 21st century. Several crimes are committed in the world by people with serious drug problems accounting for a large portion on all crimes committed. Drug courts have broken the cycle of substance misuse by incorporating treatment programs that go hand in hand with the court process. These courts have reduced crime, and saved taxpayers money significantly. References Belenko, S. (2005). Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. Economic Benefits Of Drug Treatment: A Critical Review of the Evidence for Policy Makers, 2-4. Faith E. Lutze, J. v. (2007). Th Nexus Between Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program Integrity and Drug Court Effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 226-245. Lessenger, J. E. G. F. (2007). Drug Courts: A New Approach to Treatment and Rehabilitation. Carlifornia: Springer. Marlowe, D. B. D. S. (2004). The Judge is a Key Component of Drug Court. National Drug Court Institute Drug Court Review,, 1-34. Neubauer, D. W. H. F. (2010). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. New York: Cengage Learning. O’Hear, M. (2009). Rethinking Drug Courts: Restorative Justice As A Response To Racial Injustice. Stanford Law & Policy Review,, 101-137. Samaha, J. (2005). Criminal Justice. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More