Embedding Drug Treatment within the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

Embedding Drug Treatment within the Criminal Justice System: Advantages and Disadvantages introduction There has been a strong move to embed drug treatment within the criminal justice system. Governments around the world have been concerned in reducing the drug problem because of their confidence in the idea that “treatment works.” Hence, the system itself has been geared to play a major role in treatment programs. This seeks to examine the pros and cons in integrating drug treatment within the correctional system. To do this, there is a need to understand the origin of this thrust and analyze the major and specific effects if implemented. bringing in drug treatment A large number of criminal delinquents are drug users. Studies have proved that many drug-using offenders return to drugs and the lifestyle that they had after going back to the streets. Thus, interventions are needed in the correctional system in order to avoid the drug cycle (Anderson & Harrison, 2004). Indeed, it has also been revealed that there are still those who continue to use drugs even while in prison (Bean, 2004). Cope (cited in Bean 2004) called this a “drug continuum,” where prisoners are no less ‘risk-free’ from drugs inside than outside prison walls. These heavy involvements in drugs of the correctional facilities plus the recurrence of drug use have led authorities to bring in drug treatment and testing orders (Anderson & Harrison, 2004). Because of the correlation between drugs and crime, the criminal justice system is an ideal spot for organizing a drug treatment designed at decreasing drug use among offenders which may significantly reduce criminal behaviors (Bean, 2004). ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Evidence suggests that treatment in prison itself effectively control recidivism or drug relapse (Early, 1996), since drug treatment has been effective in inducing “positive attitudes and behavioral changes in chemically dependent offenders” (Wexler, 1996). According to Chaiken & Chaiken (cited in Bean, 2004), “street heroin users reduce their criminality to the order of something like 70% when in treatment.” Therefore, inmates under treatment are comparably less inclined to commit offenses. Inciardi (cited in Anderson & Harrison, 2004) discovered that in-prison treatments result to “reductions in the use of injection drugs and in the amount of income from crime, fewer returns to correctional facilities for new sentences, fewer hospital stays for drug and alcohol problems, and an increased likelihood of having health insurance when working.” More particularly, since many drug addicts are injectors, the decrease in injection use reduces the spread of AIDS, albeit only indirectly. Based on studies, AIDS cases (32%) are rampant among intravenous drug users, who with homosexual practices in jails breed the spread of HIV infections: posing a great danger to society when they are released (Wexler, 1996). Embedding drug treatment in the criminal justice system is said to minimize health-related complications among prisoners especially with respect to mental and physical illness associated with drugs; this is because “corrections-based drug treatments” are instrumental in educating inmates on how to be physically, emotionally, and mentally fit (Anderson & Harrison, 2004). Drug treatment is likewise cost effective in terms of billions saved from reduced costs in lowered recidivism, continuing criminality, and family breakdown. In fact, research studies have demonstrated how drug treatment could lessen social welfare expenditures by increasing drug users’ chances to obtain decent employment after release (Gerstein, cited in Anderson & Harrison, 2004). On the practical side, it is true that these incarcerated criminals will be out in the streets after their release. Drug treatment will be very helpful in preparing them to be in much stronger grounds when they return to the community. There is, on the other hand, little account on the disadvantages of embedding drug treatment in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, there are those who believe that incorporating treatment in criminal justice is “theoretically faulty, systematically discriminatory in practice and inconsistent with some of our basic concepts of justice” (Bean, 2004). The challenge is premised on its effect in the civil rights of the offenders due to potential violations of due process. The mixture between drug treatment and criminal justice create a dangerous tendency of governmental intrusion into the private lives of offenders. More powers are given to the treatment providers as the treatment progresses, oftentimes trampling legal rights of the felons (Bean, 2004). Additionally, there are sentiments that the integration will be counterproductive to the recipient and detrimental to the treatment’s effectiveness as a whole. The hostile nature of correctional environments may only obstruct the treatment process; hence it is more practicable to reserve the treatment after the offender’s release (Robinson, 2001). treatment to avoid the criminal justice system Casselman (2004) has argued that criminal justice system and drug treatment system belong to two separate worlds—having different objectives and different languages. Thus, reservations in their incorporation have surfaced. Apparently, availing of drug rehabilitation is subject to abuse. Criminals may easily invoke drug addiction as the underlying cause for their crimes—evading punitive justice by claiming addiction treatment. For some, this prevention-based system distorts the justice process and affects the effectiveness of crime control mechanisms of the state (Robinson, 2001). It alters the true goal of justice and cripples the meaning of punishment. Thus, to avoid this conflict, Robinson (2001) strongly recommends the segregation of criminal justice system (focused on curtailing and punishing crimes), and prevention-based system (devoted to treatment of the offenders). CONCLUSION Because of the strong link between drug abuse and crimes and the proliferation of drug users even inside prison walls, drug treatment has been introduced within the criminal justice system. It has become an ideological thrust of the government that ‘treatment works’ in combating the drug problem. Advocates of this fusion believe not only in individual benefits that drug treatment brings among offenders but also in social and economic implications such as reduction in recidivism which leads to greater societal benefit. However, it is unavoidable to have oppositions in this idea. For them, prison is still prison not a therapeutic or medical institution; criminal justice stresses punishment and appears incompatible with treatment. References Anderson, T, & Harrison L 2004, ‘Therapeutic community drug treatment in the US criminal justice system’, in Bean P, & Nemitz T (eds.), Drug treatment: what works?, Routledge, New York, pp. 191-210. Bean, P 2004 ‘Linking treatment services to the criminal justice system’, in Bean P, & Nemitz T, Drug treatment: what works?, Routledge, New York, pp. 219-235. Casselman, J 2004 ‘Motivation enhancement in clients referred from the criminal justice system’, in Bean P, & Nemitz T (eds.), Drug treatment: what works?, Routledge, New York, pp. 236-241. Early, K 1996, Drug treatment behind bars: prison-based strategies for change, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT. Robinson, P 2001, Crime, punishment and prevention. Public Interest, p. 61. Wexler, H 1996, ‘Evaluation of prison substance abuse treatment programs: outcome studies and methodology’, in Early, K (ed.), Drug treatment behind bars: prison-based strategies for change, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, pp. 109-131. Read More