Drugs and the Australian Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

Drugs and the Australian Criminal Justice System Narcotic consumption is rampant in Australia. There is widespread use of illicit narcotics in Australian society, despite the fact that the Australian government had prohibited the production of substances like methamphetamine and MDMA or Ecstasy by unauthorized laboratories in the nation. There had been a phenomenal increase in the number of narcotics producing units, over a period of time. Furthermore, these laboratories acquired sophisticated technology and equipment to produce these narcotic drugs. However, the drugs produced by these clandestine laboratories are used only within the nation and are not exported. For instance, it has never been established that illicit drugs manufactured in Australia have been exported to other countries like the United States (Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, 2007). In Australia, the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories cooperate with each other in making legislation that addresses the supply, distribution, possession and use of narcotics. These bodies share the responsibility for enacting relevant legislation. There is a trans-state supply of illicit drugs in Australia, which has no geographical boundaries within the nation. Moreover, it is also evident that in certain incidents there had been cross national supply of drugs (The Attorney - General, 1989). The courts and the police employ drug diversion initiatives to treat drug addicts. These initiatives attempt to divert users from taking drugs. Education and compulsory assessment are two major diversions provided to drug abusers. After completion of the assessment, drug users are shifted to the appropriate education or treatment program. In April 1999, the Council of Australian Governments or COAG implemented the national strategy, by which concrete and concerted action was to be taken against drug peddlers and possessors (Crime Prevention and Community Safety Learning Circles). The National Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative provides early intervention measures for first time abusers and other less serious offenders; which provide either treatment or education, without involving the criminal justice system. The aim of this strategy is to encourage and motivate drug users to identify their drug addiction, at an early stage, and obtain appropriate treatment. This enables them to rejoin society without causing any adverse impact and ensures safety. Proponents of diversion schemes argue that educating users and providing subsequent treatment measures for first time users in the early stages, would provide positive outcomes in the long run. Moreover, such abusers will not be subjected to the punishments of the criminal justice systems. This will enable them to get rid of their addiction to drugs (Crime Prevention and Community Safety Learning Circles). The government of New South Wales established a pilot Drug Court in order to address increase in drug – related crime. It deals with increase in drug users and the high level of arrests and imprisonments of offenders on drug related crime charges. Similar pilot programs were initiated in several regions of south – east and north Queensland. The fundamental responsibility of these drug courts is to provide choice and opportunity for offenders. These opportunities include treatment facilities for and rehabilitation of offenders. However, these offenders must have been referred to the drug courts. Concerted action has to be undertaken by probation officers, parole officers, healthcare providers and the Department of the Attorney General of New South Wales, to benefit such offenders. Offenders in this plan have to present themselves at specified intervals before the same judge or magistrate, who will review changes in their behavioral patterns and take account of them. A mandatory urine analysis of the offenders is conducted during this process. Eventually this would help offenders to emerge from drug addiction, which in turn would reduce drug related crime perpetrated by them. The courts are friendly towards these offenders and encourage their progress. The role of the drug court is different from that of the traditional court. In the latter, the offenders are forced to make a promise to the world before being sentenced. Subsequently, they are ignored and they have scan regard of that pledge. There are no incentives for adhering to the promise or displaying a positive attitude. Although, drug courts are expensive they are more effective than the traditional courts with regard to drug – related crime (Crime Prevention and Community Safety Learning Circles). Drug courts consider drug addiction as a health related issue, and deal with a wide range of causes that contribute to drug addiction and related crime. These courts have opined that unless the factors that promote drug addiction are stopped, there cannot be any positive outcome. In the criminal justice system these courts play an important role in the area of illicit drugs; and they question offenders about their needs. The resulting information is analyzed by psychologists, in order to obtain a clear picture of the offender’s condition. There is a general assessment regarding the treatment to be provided. Subsequently, the drug courts employ a team of experts to identity the most appropriate program for a particular offender. It is possible for the magistrates of a drug court to interact with each individual participant, and such interactions prove to be relevant and helpful for these offenders (Crime Prevention and Community Safety Learning Circles). The Australian war against drugs has proved to be a major failure. The lesson to be learned from the Australian experience is that if there is demand for narcotics, several avenues will emerge for their supply. This is an inevitable situation, and the persistent demand for mood enhancing drugs is to be treated as a social and health problem. Some academicians in this area of study had stated that it should not be treated as a law and order problem, and that the initiatives of the law enforcement authorities would be unable to deal with it successfully. This perspective attracted the attention of politicians and law enforcement officials; and this approach has found wide acceptance among the people of the world. Consequently, the Australian authorities began to depart from their earlier views regarding the problem of abuse of illicit drugs by the people of Australia (Wodak & Moore, 2001). Marijuana is abused to a major extent in Australia, and this substance is grown within the country. Moreover, there is compelling evidence, which indicates that the abuse of methamphetamine, crystal methamphetamine, and MDMA or Ecstasy is on the increase in recent times. According to the 2006 UN World Drug Report, the abuse of methamphetamine and MDMA is the more in Australia than in any other country of the world (Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, 2007). Although, the illegal possession and distribution of crystal methamphetamine is punishable in Australia; the number of arrests made for the possession of these drugs has increased by 250 percent over the last decade. This increasing trend in the abuse of narcotics has generated considerable concern, especially in the context of the abuse of crystal methamphetamine. It is also evident that the abuse of cocaine has currently increased. In the past, only the rich and affluent abused cocaine; however, of late it has become common with even the not so affluent sections of Australian society. Since the 1990’s, the use of heroin has gradually declined; and this trend can be attributed to the stringent measures adopted by the law enforcement officials, who seized drugs and apprehended heroin traffickers. In addition, the efforts of the government in publicizing the dangers inherent in heroin use have also been conducive to this achievement (Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, 2007). In the year 1985, the Prime Minister of Australia had called for a nationwide coordinated and concerted effort to effectively counter the drug problem. The governments of the State and Territories responded positively to the Prime Minister’s call and extended their cooperation to the national government. This resulted in the establishment of the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, in which all the State and Territory governments agreed to act in a concerted manner. Australia is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971. These international conventions fight against the abuse of narcotic and psychotropic substances, and attempt to restrict their use to medical purposes and scientific research. Australia has also signed another Convention, under which it uses enhanced interventions to fight against the trafficking of drugs in Australia (The Attorney - General, 1989). The Australian drug laws prohibit the use and prescribing of illicit drugs. However, doctors can prescribe drugs as merely for the purposes of addiction. This system of prescribing drugs was developed to enable drug addicts to obtain drugs without any interruption under proper medical supervisions. This system had prevailed until the 1960’s and was determined by doctors. Thus, it had been accepted as treatment under medical supervision (Maderson, 1992). Crime and illicit drugs are closely related to each other. The Australian criminal justice systems had already recognized this correlation between drugs and crime. They had developed various countering interventions to address the problem. Under these policy measures, the courts do not simply impose terms of incarceration on the offenders, instead they recommend diversionary schemes and other types of de-addiction techniques on those offenders, as part of the treatment. Several measures are employed for this purpose, which include early police diversion schemes, court – sponsored interventions, in which the offenders are sent for treatment that gets rid of their addiction to drugs, and other measures that the drug courts employ in dealing with more serious offenders. In addition, there are measures to provide treatment in the prisons for such offenders. Despite all these attempts by the criminal justice systems in Australia, there is still the need for promoting and strengthening the diversion programs and their implementation in other fields (Makkai, 2003). The offenders have to be provided with support once they were released from prison, this comes under post – release support. Interventions should discourage offenders from repeating crimes. Treatment for addiction to drugs has proven to be a beneficial form of intervention for breaking the cycle of reoffending. Moreover, the interventions initiated by the police and the drug courts differ to a large extent, with regard to arrested offenders. Even individuals with minor offences are subjected to these diversionary processes. Researchers and academicians claim that Australia must adopt the arrest – drug – referral schemes, which have already been initiated in the United Kingdom. However, such initiatives entail a large number of personnel. It is also important to ascertain that offenders participate voluntarily in such schemes. At the moment, Australia provides treatment only for heroin addiction; and the measures in respect of other drugs are woefully inadequate (Makkai, 2003). The responsibility to control drug trafficking, possession, supply and abuse of illicit drugs is principally shared by the governments of the States and Territories in Australia. The Commonwealth plays a key role in regulating drug trafficking and has vast powers over imports and exports. It is the designated authority for dealing with international conventions and treaties. This delegation of power has established different approaches to deal with the problem of drug abuse in their individual jurisdictions. There is no common policy among them and every jurisdiction has its own definitions and regulatory mechanisms for dealing with illicit drugs. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 defines the term drug according to the description provided in the First Schedule to this Act. Moreover, every State and Territory has its own legislation that lists out the drugs prohibited in its jurisdiction (Burton, 2004). In a research study carried out by the drug courts of South East Queensland and New South Wales, it was disclosed that some individuals continue to perpetrate criminal activities and abuse illicit drugs. These individuals had undergone an intensive twelve month conditioning program, which had been supervised by experts in the area. The research study of Queensland had shown that nearly one-third of those who had graduated from the drug courts, had recidived into criminal activity and the abuse of drugs, during the follow – up period after their graduation. The police authorities had initiated diversion schemes for young offenders and juvenile delinquents. The study of their behavioural patterns revealed that those who had undergone these schemes had not repeated those offences. These schemes were aimed at young offenders who were first time offenders (Makkai, 2003). Drugs harm the health of the abuser. The harm reduction measures aim to treat abusers of illicit drugs; but many drug addicts are disinclined to undergo treatment. Hence, drug abusers have to be encouraged to join treatment centers. Other interventions are aimed at curbing the spread of dangerous infectious diseases. While providing treatment, medical professionals, counselors and psychiatrists help drug abusers. Such addicts are treated in the detoxification centers; and such harm reduction interventions ensure the health of the community at large because dependent users attend the detoxification centers at the behest of the community. Consequently, these addicts can rectify their way of living and inhibit their drug intake. These interventions also help to reduce drug related crime in the community. This is a significant direct benefit of such measures (CRIME AND ILLICIT DRUGS, 2007). The National Campaign against Drug Abuse emerged in 1985 in Australia. It had a major influence on the national drugs policy by making harm minimization the fundamental duty and basis of the latter. There are several schemes and medical interventions, which are based on harm minimization. These measures are aimed at reducing the harm caused by drug abuse. However, several forces have mitigated the effectiveness of the national harm minimization program. Some of these are the failure to grasp the scope and purpose of the policy and the stringent attitude of the National Drug Strategy, regarding illicit drugs. Furthermore, the callousness of the Commonwealth in implementing harm minimization schemes has also caused considerable damage (Wellbourne-Wood, 1 November 1999). In Australia, there is a lack of coordination between the States and Territories, in respect of enacting laws to control illicit drugs abuse. Each State and Territory enacts its own laws within its territory and this constitutes a major hindrance to the control of illicit drugs within the nation. The States and Territories are more concerned about how to import drugs from the Commonwealth administration, which is the regulatory authority for supplying drugs to them. Nine enforcement bodies, with their own operational rules, have been constituted to prevent the trafficking of illicit drugs. Their chief task is to restrict the flow of illicit drugs in the nation. Thus there are nine different legislations that deal with illicit drug traffic, which differ from each other. For instance, possession of certain drugs without a doctor’s prescription is an offence in some States, whereas it is not an offence in other States. In addition, in some other States there is no requirement of a doctor’s prescription for purchasing medicines while others require a doctor’s prescription (HALL, 2001). The abuse of narcotics and other illicit substances has been a major national stigma for Australia. The government of Australia has undertaken several measures to address this problem, but these measures have met with limited success. Similarly there have been nationwide public debates, regarding the causes underlying the abuse of illicit drugs. The objective of these debates was to educate the people about the dangers inherent is the abuse of drugs. Despite all these efforts, the abuse of drugs has emerged as a major social and political problem (Wodak & Moore, 2001). Drug abuse is a major social and health problem that is not restricted to Australia. It is an international problem that has to be regulated. Almost all Australian governments have recognized this fact, which constitutes the basis for the creation of the National Campaign aimed at confronting drug abuse. All said and done, it is impossible to eliminate drug abuse, in the absence of public cooperation. Accordingly, the Australian government has recognized the fact that the extant legislation, which proscribes the illegal possession and abuse of drugs, does not provide a permanent solution to the drug problem. In order to address this menace, it is important to provide information about drug abuse and its effect from childhood itself. Thus, the government is required to implement preventive education in the schools. It is also important to establish rehabilitation facilities to addicts. The National Campaign stresses on these two vital aspects (The Attorney - General, 1989). List of References Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. (2007). International Narcotics Control Strategy Report -- 2007. Retrieved September 01, 2008, from Southeast Asia and the Pacific: http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/drugs/incsr2007/incsr_2007_australia.html Burton, K. (2004, May 17). Illicit Drugs in Australia: Use, Harm and Policy Responses. Retrieved September 01, 2008, from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/illicitdrugs.htm CRIME AND ILLICIT DRUGS. (2007, June 06). Retrieved September 05, 2008, from http://www.ffdlr.org.au/resources/Crime%20and%20Illicit%20drugs.htm Crime Prevention and Community Safety Learning Circles. (n.d.). Drug related crime. Retrieved September 06, 2008, from http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(454DFAFE2D6830FB1D0597823A67B5D6)~NCCPP+Learning+Circles_04.pdf/$file/NCCPP+Learning+Circles_04.pdf HALL, M. C. (2001, August 31). Problems in legislating against abuse of hallucinogenic fungi in Australia . Retrieved September 06, 2008, from http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=16591 Maderson, D. (1992). Rules and Practices: The "British System" in Australia. Retrieved September 06, 2008, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/library%5Cpremand.cfm Makkai, T. (2003). Substance use, psychological distress and crime. Retrieved September 05, 2008, from http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_08_201003/mak10479_fm-1.html The Attorney - General. (1989, June 06). Response by the Attorney - General to the Report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority entitled "Drugs, Crime and Society". Retrieved September 01, 2008, from http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/acc_ctte/completed_inquiries/pre1996/dcs89/gov_response.pdf Wellbourne-Wood, D. (1 November 1999). Harm reduction in Australia: some problems putting policy into practice . International Journal of Drug Policy , Vol. 10, Iss. 5, Pp. 403 – 413. Wodak, A., & Moore, T. (2001, September). Modernising Australias Drug Policy. Retrieved September 01, 2008, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/bookstore/modernising.cfm Read More