Drug Courts: An Analysis and Discussion of Efficacy with a Special Focus on Wisconsin - Research Paper Example

Section/# Drug Courts: An Analysis and Discussion of Efficacy with a Special Focus on Wisconsin One does not need to be an expert in criminal law to realize the fact that the nation’s prison system is already overburdened; and in many places at risk of being completely overwhelmed. Interestingly, the underlying reason for this doesn’t necessarily have to do with the fact that there is more crime within the current era as compared to the past several decades. Instead, harsher penalties and three strikes and you’re out laws have effectively change the dynamics of the American prison population and created a situation in which many nonviolent offenders are serving extraordinarily long sentences for Ricky and/or habitual infringement of a variety of different laws. One of the most common reasons that individuals find themselves behind bars has to do with infringement of existing drug laws. Federal and state mandated laws pertaining to the use of illicit substances have come to be increasingly draconian in an attempt to reduce the overall level of crime and drug crime that is exhibited throughout society. Interestingly, as penalties have become stiffer, the actual rate of usage have not decreased; instead, the prison populations throughout the country have drastically increased. Recognizing that the current half of imprisonment for nonviolent drug offenders is ultimately untenable and creates an economic situation in which individual taxpayers throughout society must support nonviolent criminals during lengthy prison stands, many local jurisdictions and states have begun to implement what have become to be known as “drug courts”. These drug courts provide an alternative to a lengthy jury trial and/or the potential for long-term imprisonment if the individual is in fact found guilty. By seeking to bypass the system, at least some degree, these drug lords and experience a certain degree of success; in nearly every jurisdiction and location that they have been implemented. As a function of this particular analysis, the discussion will be concentric upon some of the legal benefits and drawbacks that drug courts have; commensurate with the situation that is currently exhibited within the state of Wisconsin. It is the hope of this analyst that such a level of discussion will be beneficial and assisting the reader to understand this situation to a more dynamic degree and extent. One of the first, and perhaps most measurable, benefit that drug courts are able to provide to the system has to do with the increased efficiency that the judicial process is able to operate under. For instance, in the early 1980s, Miami-Dade County was one of the first to jurisdictions within the United States to create specific drug courts as a means of reducing the overall strain on the judicial system and placing a higher emphasis on other crimes that had direct and definitive impact upon individuals other than the users themselves. What was noted, within a relatively brief period of time, was the fact that by separating drug crimes from the majority of other crimes punished by the state, not only was the criminal process more efficient, it also helps to assist in a reduction of the recidivism that drug users might otherwise reflect. Essentially, providing stiff prison sentences to drug users wise, and to a large degree still is, and extraordinarily inefficient way to deal with the situation at hand. For instance, first, second, third, or Ricky drug offenders that are thrown into prison as a function of correcting their behavior do not necessarily “learn” from the state. Instead, they stand a potential to be hardened into a different type of criminal and to utilize their connections and knowledge gained in prison to commit different types of crimes once they get out of prison. Instead, Miami-Dade County realize that an alternative approach, the creation of drug courts, could promote a level of reduced recidivism by providing mandatory treatment for these individuals rather than merely penalizing them based upon the decisions they had made. An alternative benefit was of course with respect to the fact that the docket of criminal cases allowed the criminal justice system to more efficiently and effectively address some of the more egregious crimes that were committed within society; rather than merely focusing and extent and level of energy on drug related crimes. Arguably, this particular approach not only assisted in the rehabilitation of drug users, it also had an indirect level of benefit with respect to the way in which the entire criminal justice system operated and crime was defined based upon the ultimate act committed (Shannon et al. 460). From a judicial standpoint, this was but one step of many with respect to understanding drug crime in terms of a victimless action that the individual should be treated for in terms of rehabilitation rather than direct punitive action and deprivation of their ultimate freedom. Essentially, stakeholders within Miami-Dade, and subsequent sociologists and criminologists have come to understand that the type of criminal behavior that encourages an individual to engage in drug related crime is ultimately one of those that can potentially be corrected the easiest; providing is dealt with in an effective manner – such as the provision of drug courts and the utilization of an alternative judicial process. An added benefit that jurisdictions which have implemented drug courts have experienced has to do with the fact that as opposed to the typical process, the individual that enters a guilty plea within a drug court, and of Greece to abide by the terms and conditions of rehabilitation, is directly responsible for the way in which the process is conducted and ultimately concludes; whether a positive result is realized or whether a negative result is realized. By means of contrast in comparison, the individual that is simply tried and convicted of drug crime and thrown into prison has no motivation to improve their behavior or to seek to work for an alternative outcome; as the outcome is already as bad as it can get and the individual wastes away for a series of months or years in prison. Returning to the issue of drug courts and how they operate, the consent of the individual to allow their case to be tried in a drug court is an essential complement of the way in which this process works. Ultimately, the accused is given the option; either to consent to a jury trial and proceed through normative legal channels or to plead guilty and consent to being tried in a drug court. If in fact the individual sees that it is in their best interest to be tried in a drug court, and wave their responsibility to legal representation and the right to plead innocent. However, this is an invaluable step with respect to an admission of guilt and the road to recovery (Juell 1011). Essentially, the creation and proliferation of drug courts, throughout many parts of the United States – including Wisconsin, is ultimately due to the fact that this particular system of criminal justice, as it relates to drug users, has been widely successful in engaging drug users to become stakeholders and their overall recovery. Essentially, drug courts form a vital role in providing and incentivize structure for the drug user to come clean, stay clean, and reintegration with society. As compared to the paradigm that is been discussed previously, prison sentences in and of themselves do little if anything to reduce the overall rates of recidivism with respect to drug crime. However, it individual consent to being tried in a drug court for whatever substance related infringement they are responsible for, it is highly possible, and the data indicates, that these individuals will reduce their overall rates of recidivism and stand in much higher chance of three integrating with society once the program has been fully completed. Yet, it must not be understood that the drug court in and of itself represents only positive outcomes. For instance, many naysayers point to the fact that the greatest drawback to drug courts has to do with the overall lack of consistency that exists between jurisdictions, cities, counties, and states. Whereas this differential in rules may not seem as if it is a particularly important issue, the fact of the matter is that this places an undue level of strain on the legal system; as lawyers within the same state may even face a situation in which an accused individual in one location may have the right to being tried within a drug court; whereas another individual accused of the very same crime within another portion of the state might not. Naturally, the situation is of course compounded with respect to the fact that there are 50 states within the union and each and every one of these that have adopted drug courts abide by different rules. The array of legal constraints and requirements that the drug court in turn operates under are understandably dizzying. This has been a particular hardship with respect to the legal system within Wisconsin. Currently, there are 50 drug courts in operation throughout the state (Gallagher 17). Understandably, the majority of these are located within densely populated areas such as Milwaukee and elsewhere. Notwithstanding this fact, the jurisdictional rules that apply to which individuals are eligible for drug court and how the proceedings and punishments are meted out creating dynamic by which even an individual skilled and educated with the law and fully certified with the Wisconsin bar would find it necessary to research the jurisdiction in which the accused is faced with punishment prior to indicating whether or not proceeding with the drug court option is even feasible; or within the best interests of the client. Legal rights advocates also point to the fact that one of the primary drawback that drug courts exhibit have to do with the loss of rights that the individual who is excused necessarily acquiesces to the moment in which the Greek the tribe by such an entity. As a function of the speedy trial and the fact that prison sentences are normally never a complement of drug court decisions or verdicts, a requirement of a guilty plea is necessary prior to the individual ever being admitted to this particular process (Lutze and Jacqueline van Wormer 379). Naturally, the trade-off with respect it is at the back and attorneys are never given ample time to gather or you sufficient evidence as a means of properly advising their clients. Essentially, a level of incentivize nation is given with respect to pleading guilty; in the understanding or hope that the individual will be dealt a lighter sentence; even if it is not the case that they were in fact guilty of the crime that they are excused. Naturally, this live in the very base of the legal system is intended to provide and how it is essentially determined to promote equality and justice under the law. Additionally, many legal scholars argue for the fact that drug courts are a needless creation; due in part the fact that the existing process of probation and parole can essentially be used to accomplish the very same goals. However, the key differential that must be spoken to with respect to this quibble has to do with the fact that probation and parole is essentially not designed as a process of rehabilitation. Instead, it is designed is a process by which the individual is halfway between the institution of prison and free society; able to effectively navigate their path to greater freedom if they prove to be responsible in their conduct. A further argument against this particular point of view has to do with the fact that recidivism and rates of probation are not commensurate with recidivism and rate of violation as compared to individuals that face drug courts (Lyons 414). Whereas both probation and parole as well as drug courts incur a sizable expense for the individual taxpayer, they are both significantly less as compared to the expense that would be incurred the individual were merely given a lengthy prison sentence for the violation that they are present guilty of. Furthermore, the benefits of drug courts are contingent upon the belief that recidivism can be drastically decreased with proper training and rehabilitation. Once again, this is not represented with respect to probation and parole it is ultimately a function of drug courts as a means of decreasing recidivism with respect to this particular type crime. Whereas the analysis that has thus far been conducted has been contingent upon the impact of drug courts, and historical overview of how they operate, and a discussion with respect to their benefits and drawbacks, the following section will be solely contingent upon the issue of drug courts as they relate to recidivism, rates of crime, and drug-related arrests within Wisconsin. As specified previously, there are currently 50 programs that engage drug courts within the state of Wisconsin. Furthermore, there are 10 within early planning stages. For the most part, these drug courts are exhibited within counties that have populations in excess of several hundred thousand individuals. Naturally, the drawback of this has to do with the fact that drug courts are not an option for each and every individual that might be used to the drug-related crime within the state of Wisconsin. Currently, 28/72 counties within Wisconsin offer an option to proceed through the criminal justice system, it accused of a drug crime, via the Avenue of a drug court. Quite obviously, this statistic reveals the fact that the majority of counties within Wisconsin do not have this opportunity. Critics of the program, and of its overall efficacy, point to the fact that individuals within more rural areas are at a increased disadvantage; both with respect to the fairness of the legal system and the degree and extent to which they can hope to decrease rates of recidivism based upon the available resources at their disposal. The overall goal is of course to realize a situation in which all of Wisconsin 72 counties exhibit drug courts and offer this as a viable alternative to individuals accused of drug crimes. However, the obvious constrained to this has to do with the fact the criminal justice system is already pressure to an extreme with respect to monetary allotments, grants, and other resources that can be utilized to otherwise differentiate and expand the existing system to all stakeholders within the state. From the more negative point of view, many legal experts, inclusive of judges within the state of Wisconsin, point to the fact that many individuals that are accused of drug crimes are in eligible for drug courts; due in part to the fact that these drug courts have extraordinarily high requirements with respect to which individuals are allowed in and under what contexts. Accordingly, prior crimes, oftentimes unrelated to issues concerning drug usage, exempt individuals from being eligible for these drug courts. As such, in many cases, individuals find that the requirements of these drug courts and constant reporting that they are required to perform, not dissimilar to the way in which probation and parole conducts regular drug tests, is to laborious and intensive; even preferring prison time rather than the alternatives that the drug courts are able to provide. This fact notwithstanding, a multitier study conducted by the national Institute of Justice indicated that drug courts were able to reduce rates of repeat offenses by between 17 and 26%. Whereas this might not seem as an impressive statistic, in terms of recidivism and way in which the state can seek to decrease the overall level of drug users and drug-related crimes, this is a powerful statistic. Effectively, no other known program, inclusive of rehabilitation, has been known to effectively elicit the same high reduction in drug-related crime rates as compared to that which the drug courts are able to perform. Naturally, the reduction in recidivism that drug courts are able to effect nationally does not necessarily correspond to the individual states or jurisdictions that utilize drug courts themselves. A recent Wisconsin study indicated that upwards of 34% of individuals that would have normally found their way back into the criminal justice system were discouraged from further drug usage and engaging in similar lifestyle choices as a direct result of the drug courts and the impact that this had upon their lives (Francis et al. 329). Naturally, in comparison to prison, rates of recidivism have been estimated to be within the low single digits; specifically with reference to drug-related offenses. From the information that has thus far been represented, it is clear and apparent that drug courts provide a powerful mechanism by which the criminal justice system can seek to decrease the overall rates of drug-related recidivism reflected within society. Furthermore, with respect to the issue of Wisconsin, it is also clear and apparent that drug courts are having a positive impact with respect to the recovery and development of former criminals and the means by which they are able to integrate with society and stay away from a culture of recidivism. Naturally, the current situation is not perfect and requires that the state of Wisconsin, as well as many other states, focus upon extending the reach of these drug courts to all individuals within their borders. Even though it is true that drug-related crime is an order of magnitude higher in densely populated areas as compared to rural areas, it is patently unfair to penalize individuals within more ruler areas due to the fact that they do not have access to drug courts as compared to their urban counterparts. Naturally, in order to accomplish this, federal and state, as well as local, funding must be allocated to the provision of these systems. Beyond merely promoting fairness within the criminal justice system, this will also drastically help to reduce the number of individuals that are incarcerated on nonviolent drug charges; arguably one of the greatest issues that is represented within the current criminal justice system and create such a level of unfairness with respect to the way in which crime is punished. Works Cited Francis, Traci R., and Eileen Mazur Abel. "Redefining Success: A Qualitative Investigation Of Therapeutic Outcomes For Noncompleting Drug Court Clients." Journal Of Social Service Research 40.3 (2014): 325-338. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Aug. 2014. Gallagher, John R. "Predicting Criminal Recidivism Following Drug Court: Implications For Drug Court Practice And Policy Advocacy." Journal Of Addictions & Offender Counseling 35.1 (2014): 15-29. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Aug. 2014. Juell, Gregory M. "Drugs: You Use, You Gain? Why Courts Should Uphold Long-Term Disability Benefits For Recovering Addicts."Journal Of Law & Policy 22.2 (2014): 1005-1048. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Aug. 2014. Lutze, Faith E., and Jacqueline van Wormer. "The Reality Of Practicing The Ten Key Components In Adult Drug Court." Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation 53.5 (2014): 351-383. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Aug. 2014. Lyons, Tara. "Judges As Therapists And Therapists As Judges: The Collision Of Judicial And Therapeutic Roles In Drug Treatment Courts." Contemporary Justice Review 16.4 (2013): 412-424. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Aug. 2014. Shannon, Lisa M., et al. "Examining Gender Differences In Substance Use, Participant Characteristics, And Treatment Outcomes Among Individuals In Drug Court." Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation 53.6 (2014): 455-477. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Aug. 2014. Read More