Australian Criminal Justice System Response to Illicit Drugs and Violence - Article Example

Australian criminal justice system response to illicit drugs and violence According to Australia’s Ministerial Council, which develops strategy for drug abuse (MCDS), an illicit drug refers to any drug whose possession, sale or production is prohibited. Illicit drugs include heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy, use of volatile substances as inhalants such as petrol, solvent and glue as well as use of prescribed drugs for non-medical purposes (MCDS, 2004). Research on use of illicit drugs in Australia showed that more than 38% of people from 14 years and above had used an illicit drug in their lifetime at least once. Cannabis was found to be the most commonly used illicit drug where one person in every three had used it in their lifetime for at least once. The most commonly used drugs are cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, hallucinogens as well as analgesics or painkillers for non-medical use. Use of illicit drugs has been common for people within the range of 18 to 29 years where 31% of this age bracket were found to have used at least one of these drugs. Studies also showed that those aged between 12 to 15 years were less likely to use any of these drugs as compared with those within the range of 16 to 39 tears (AIHW, 2005). The usage of illicit drugs has been linked to various effects on human health, which include mental disorder, diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, AIDs among others. Use of cannabis is related to high levels of psychological stress. There is also a rise in death rates because of overdose (Amin et al., 2004). There have been deep concerns about the use of illicit drugs as various bodies, institutions and citizens had expressed their concerns on drug problems in Australia. One in ten sentenced prisoners in this country was imprisoned due to offences related to illicit drugs. In addition, approximately 72% of the arrests on illicit drugs are associated with cannabis. Studies also found that two thirds of the female prisoners were using illicit drugs before arrest (Johnson, 2004). Research has also revealed the interconnection between illicit drugs and violence where use of illicit drugs will facilitate violent behaviour and in turn lead to crime (Breen et al., 2004). However, there had been more concern about the use of cocaine, cannabis and heroine. The concern about the increasing rates in crime, in particular property and violent crime and its connection to the use of illicit drugs began in 1980s. In response, there have been proliferations of initiatives in criminal justice focused towards addressing the issue of illicit drugs. Every state and territory in Australia has implemented various drug diversion programs that operate along the continuum of criminal justice. The initiatives can be categorised into four. First, the police based programs that provide education and assessment on drugs, in particular for individuals with minor offences concerning cannabis and other illicit drugs. Second, the court level that includes bail based programs, which are designed to offer assessment as well as short-term treatment for those with less serious offences. For these offenders, their criminal behaviour must be related to use of illicit drugs. Third category involve pre and post sentencing intensive drug court programs which provide intensive and long term treatment of offenders whose dependency on drugs is the main contributor to their offending. Finally, the fourth category involves the NSW Correctional Centre for compulsory drug treatment that specialises in a treatment that is abstinence based and rehabilitation. This is related to dependency of illicit drugs in long term and an associated constant imprisonment (Wundersitz, 2007). This article will focus on police diversion initiative, intermediate court based diversion, drug courts, and correctional centres for compulsory drug treatment in response to drugs and violence. It also considers the strengths and weaknesses of these initiatives. Police diversion initiatives The aim of the police based interventions is to target the first and second time offenders in possession of any illicit drug. Various states and territories implemented the various forms of police drug diversion but with similar basic structures. The initiatives relied on police as a source of referral and focused on individuals with minor amounts of illicit drugs. They all shared a component that focused on use of cannabis. Finally, they involve an educational component with variation on delivery of education such as meeting with a specialist among others (AIHW, 2005). The initiative has various strengths. It leads to a decrease in percentage for those respondents that were using cannabis regularly. Use of drugs for males decreased from 97 to 77 percent and the female users decreased from 89 to 67 percent in a period of six months. There were savings from court due to reduced cases in possession of illicit drugs. These savings amounted to more than $ 800, 000 for the first three years after inception. It also led to savings in terms of time. The initiative led to improvement in terms of general health, neurological health, and cardio respiratory health among others. There were also improvements in terms of mental health where the levels of distress and overall symptoms decreased. The initiatives led to increase in full time and part time workers by 6 and 5 percent respectively in the first six months, which was also reflected by a decrease in unemployment levels. In addition, the level of inject drug use which the authorities considered to be very risky became very low after three years. Finally, the affected individuals acquired good social functioning compared to their previous conditions (Hales, 2003). However, the initiative also shows some weaknesses. The information available on the achievement of the objectives of the initiatives is limited. The extent of the programs on the reduction of use of illicit drugs as well as the related offending behaviour is inconclusive. With the expectation of diversion of around 3,000 clients after the full implementation of the schemes, Victoria only achieved 300 clients at recruitment phase (Health Outcomes International, 2002). Intermediate court based diversion The initiatives target those with a history of using of illicit drugs, have pleaded guilty and are related to family violence or other crimes of dishonesty. These programs have various similarities. They are adult-targeted and are all located at local courts, thus, limiting the seriousness of the offence. They are not confined to drug charges only but individuals whose offending is linked to using illicit drugs. The program referral can originate from various sources such as from lawyers, magistrates, and police among others. The programs exclude individuals charged with serious drug offences, sexual or violent offences (AIHW, 2005). The strengths of these programs are associated with their success in achievement of the preferred purposes. Results show that the emotional well being of individuals significantly increases with time. This can be analysed in terms of mental component score which showed an increase in percentage from the previous 38 percent to 48 percent after the completion of the program. The physical functioning also shows an increase from 48 to 51 percent at completion time. Improvement was also recorded through various surveys conducted during the implementation of the programs. The results showed excellence during implementation and it was noted that the problems in physical health do not affect the client’s physical activities. In addition, their physical and emotional problems did not affect their usual social activities. Their emotional problems did not keep them from performing their usual work during the implementation of the program. Finally, the results indicate that the programs lead to significant gain in physical and mental health (Kons, 2006). However, the weaknesses in the programs include the increase in preference for cannabis by more than 15 percent. This was attributed by the individual’s decision to substitute other illicit drugs such as heroin with cannabis. In addition, some programs recorded higher levels of reoffending upon implementation of the program. Finally, some outcomes such as cost saving and reduced use of drug were also very sparse concerning drawing of any conclusion (Passey, 2003). Drug courts They focus on provision of treatment and support for serious offenders with direct long-term drug dependency criminal behaviour. The programs operate in a different way for different territories and states but they are guided by a common structure. They all aim at high-end offenders with significant issues on drug dependency; they are in response to those facing a likely imprisonment term. The offender is engaged in an intensive drug treatment with additional support services such as health care and accommodation. The program must be presided over by a judicial officer and has disciplinary team of specialists, which include healthcare providers (AIHW, 2005). There are various strengths associated with the implementation of these programs. The program result to improvements concerning social functioning, mental component and physical component. They also leads to improvement in full time employment with an increase from 11 to 25 percent and a corresponding decrease in the rates of unemployment from 86 to 54 percent during implementation. In addition, the proportion of the clients in the treatment programs also increased by approximately 20 percent in a period of six month after inception (Alberti, 2004). The weaknesses in these programs can be associated with the costs involved in implementation of the programs. Given that this initiative is considered as long term, there are more costs involved in order to achieve the required outcomes. These costs result from more commitment to treatment of a serious offence, which includes involvement of teams of specialists, provision of basic requirements of the offender such as accommodation among others (Lawrence & Freeman, 2002). Correctional centres for compulsory drug treatment This program consists of a specialist correctional facility meant for males with illicit drug offences. The facility is connected to the drug court in New South Wales where the court can order offenders to serve a compulsory period of drug treatment detention within the range of 18 months to 3 years. The main aim is to separate individuals from the mainstream prisoners in order to provide a conducive environment for comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation concerning the use of illicit drugs. The program is specifically meant for breaking the bond existing between hardcore groups that involve drug dependency offenders. These offenders must have served a considerable time in other facilities for correction. The treatment provided by these centres is based on abstinence and involves three stage; closed detention, semi-open detention and community custody. Stage 1 involves initial stabilisation period with commencement of an intensive therapeutic program focused at individual’s use of drug and offending. The next two stages involve integrating the offenders into the community in a gradual manner with connection to employment, education, healthcare, and housing among others. There is also a post-program offered for one year and includes mentoring assistance (AIHW, 2005). The strengths in this program include directing of offenders away from mainstream prison where they are exposed to temptations of more drug abuse into an environment that promotes treatment and rehabilitation. The programs offered in this initiative are targeted specifically on an individual with close monitoring to ensure that the offenders will lead productive drug free lives. The weakness in this program is that it is designed for male offenders only. This serves as a gender barrier where the female drug dependency offenders lack a chance to access these facilities (NSW Government, 2007). Conclusion Australian criminal justice system for responding to use of illicit drugs and violence can be divided into four; police diversion initiatives, intermediate court based diversion initiatives, drug courts, and correctional centres for compulsory drug treatment. Police diversion initiatives, intermediate court based diversion initiatives, drug courts are available in all states, and territories and they share a similar basic structure. These initiatives are important in responding to illicit drugs and violence as evidenced in their improvement in mental health, reduction in related infections, and increase in the rates of part time and full time employment among others. The initiatives are faced by various challenges among them, the effectiveness in term of the costs of implementation. References AIHW. (2005). Statistics on drug use in Australia 2004. Cat. no. PHE 62. Canberra: AIHW. Albet, S. (2004). Court diversion program evaluation: overview report. Court diversion program evaluation, Melbourne: turning point alcohol and drug centre Inc in collaboration with health outcomes International. Amin, J., Gidding, H. F., & Gilbert. (2004). Hepatitis C prevalence- a nationwide serosurvey, Communicable diseases Intelligence, 28(4), 517-521. Breen, C., Degenhardt, L., & Roxburg, A. (2004). Australian drug trends 2003: findings from the illicit drug reporting system. National drug and alcohol research centre monograph, no. 53. Sydney: NDARC. Hales, J. (2003). Evaluation of Queensland illicit drug diversion initiative (QIDDI) police diversion program: final report. Brisbane: Queensland health. Health outcomes international. (2002). Evaluation of council of Australian Governments’ initiatives on illicit drugs: final report to department of finance and administration. Adelaide: HOI Johnson, H. (2004). Drugs and crime: a study of incarcerated female offenders. Research and Public policy series, no. 63, Canberra: Australian institute of criminology. Kons, J. (2006). Court mandated drug diversion program. Media release September 2008. Lawrence, R. & Freeman, K. (2002). Design and implementation of australia’s first drug court, Australian and New Zealand journal of criminology, 35(1), 63-78. Ministerial council on drug strategy (MCDS). (2004). The national drug strategy: Australia’s integrated framework 2004-2009. Canberra: MCDS. NSW Government. (2007). Compulsory drug treatment correctional centre. Accessed on 16, July 2012, Passey, M. (2003). Evaluation of the Lismore MERIT pilot program: final report, Sydney attorney general department. Wundersitz, J. (2007). Criminal justice responses to drug and drug-related offending: are they working? Technical and background paper no. 25 Read More