Published Paper
Article Details
ANALYSIS ON DRUG COURTS
AUTHORED BY - DIVYA BHARATHI M
PG STUDENT-SOEL
INTRODUCTION
Numerous law enforcement
organisations are seizing children in considerable numbers for a variety of
drug-related offences. Whether the charges are "small" or
"big," everyone must go through the anguish of being arrested,
posting bond, and going through the legal process, which can take a long time
and waste a person's entire youth. The stigma associated with a drug case can
result in prospects for higher education, marriage, or even job. People who use
illegal drugs run a higher chance of developing addiction as well as a number
of other health problems and problem behaviour. Increased risk of injury,
sexually and intravenously transmitted diseases and infections, unwanted
pregnancies, substance-induced mental illness, decreased academic and
professional performance, aggression, and other types of maltreatment are all
effects of drug usage. The
whole effect can be devastating for young people. Young people destroying their
lives due to engagement in drug offences is a global phenomenon. Many Western
nations have developed a novel strategy to rescue children who become embroiled
in drug misuse. The dispute over whether continued drug use is a sign of moral
weakness or a disease has persisted for a very long time. Drug use is viewed as
both a criminal offence that needs to be punished and as a chronic, relapsing
sickness or behavioural problem that needs continuing care and support. Western
nations were motivated to establish Drug Courts by the latter viewpoint.
All drug courts should
incorporate a system of data collecting and storage into their design,
according to the Drug Courts Programme Office's (1997) recommendation. Data on
participant demographics, programme compliance, and post-graduation arrests and
convictions should all be gathered. After the programme is over, participants
should be tracked for as long as possible, ideally many years. The
effectiveness of the drug court in preventing recidivism and relapse may then
be determined using this data. In order to assist the design and implementation
of the data collection and analysis, the Drug Courts Programme Office suggests
that drug courts hire an outside researcher with experience in rehabilitation.
Reducing substance use
and recidivism are the objectives of drug courts[1]. In
addition to helping offenders get back on the right track, most drug courts
work to assist them in doing so, particularly if they have undergone inpatient
treatment or have served a prison sentence Last but not least, drug courts aim
to lower the number of inmates and the cost of maintaining a jail population[2].
DESIGN OF THIS DRUG COURT
The goal of drug courts is to
prioritise rehabilitation above punishment. They are founded on a psychosocial
theory that argues that crime is a treatable condition . Because treatment
targets the root causes of crime and enhances a person's capacity to
reintegrate into society, there is scientific support for the claim that it has
better long-term outcomes than incarceration . Only about 11% of prison inmates
in the United States obtain treatment, despite the fact that about 65% of them
fit the medical criteria for addiction (CASA, 2010). Contrarily, therapy is
provided to 68% of drug court participants[3]. The
precise kind of therapies provided differ greatly amongst drug courts.
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) including individual, group, and family
therapy are examples of behavioural treatments. While some programmes offer
acupuncture, 12-step programmes, or behavioural relapse prevention programmes,
others offer medical detoxification therapies (Gottfredson et al., 2003).
Additionally, some drug courts provide support services including social or
sports activities, help with housing, financial, and legal issues, as well as
education and job training, medical treatment, and education
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Drug courts differ in how they handle
cases and approach them; their main objective is rehabilitation rather than
conviction. Drug courts are a novel idea for problem-solving courts that use a
public health perspective and a specialised model in which the legal system,
the prosecution, the defence, law enforcement, the mental health and social
service sectors, and the treatment communities collaborate to support addicts
in long-term recovery. They support rehabilitation over incarceration and
stress a collaborative approach between the prosecution, the offender, and the
court. If drug court programmes are completed successfully, charges may be
dropped entirely, receive lighter sentences, or both.substance courts combine
case processing with assistance for alcohol and other substance treatment.
Through a coordinated approach to offenders who are dependent on alcohol and
other drugs, the goal is to halt the abuse of alcohol and other substances as
well as related criminal conduct. A non-adversarial, multidisciplinary team of
judges, prosecutors, defence attorneys, social workers, and therapeutic service
specialists often runs these courts. Participation in hearings encourages
support from stakeholders who represent law enforcement, the family, and the
community.The main goal is to use the court's power to alter the drug-abusing
habits of defendants in order to reduce crime. Eligible defendants who consent
to participate are diverted to drug court programmes in a variety of methods in
exchange for the potential of dismissed charges or reduced sentences at various
stages in judicial process. Usually, these programmes are presented to defendants as an alternative
to probation or parole. It lessens the workload and expenses associated with
continuously processing low-level, non-violent offenders through the courts,
jails, and prisons of the country while simultaneously assisting participants
in recovering from addiction and preventing future criminal activity[4].
COUNTRY-WISE, As a pilot project, Sydney, Australia's first
Drug Court opened its doors. Offenders
are given a first sentence, but it is suspended, and they also have to
participate in a drug court programme. The implementation of the harsh
Rockefeller Drug Laws, which overloaded the state's criminal justice system
with an unrelenting wave of drug cases throughout the 1970s, prompted the
creation of a comparable Drug Court in New York City in 1974 after officials
there observed the program's success. In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the first
Drug Court was established in 1989. All 50 US states and Washington, D.C.
currently have drug courts, and by 2020 there will be more than 3,700 courts
nationwide. Although an estimated 1.5 million qualified people are currently in
front of the courts, only about 120,000 people are processed annually in the
drug courts. In addition to other countries, Canada, Australia, the UK, and others
have formed such courts.
The costs of drug courts and whether
they ultimately save the criminal justice system money have been the subject of
numerous studies[5].
According to a 2004 research on the Multnomah County, Oregon drug court, the
county saved $1,442 for each participant compared to "business as
usual" . "Business as usual" refers to the standard court and
jail procedures that the majority of offenders in the US go through. Along with
material costs, the study also took into account the costs of arrest, booking,
court appearances, jail and prison time, therapy, and probation services.
Specifically, compared to business as usual, the probation, law enforcement,
and public defender agencies all saw financial savings under the drug court
paradigm. Compared to business as usual, the prosecution, courts, and treatment
facilities spent more on drug court participation[6].
The price of treating an offender in
a drug court environment will vary depending on where the court is located, as
would the actual sum saved over traditional jail. The price of incarceration
varies greatly between states and is influenced by things like the amount of
time an offender spends in solitary confinement, the programming available in
the jail, and the need for medical and mental health care. Regardless of
location, it does appear that drug courts are much less expensive than
incarceration. Additionally, whether a participant in a drug court actually
stays out of the system for the remainder of their lives will determine the
total lifetime savings per participant. Results from drug court imply that it
may result in shorter treatment and jail periods for repeat offenders[7].
Drug courts differ from traditional
criminal courts in their practises and processes. Defence attorneys and
prosecutors have considerably smaller roles. Regular drug court meetings
frequently don't even have attorneys present. Instead, the judge and the client
converse openly and freely in the drug court environment during the bulk of the
courtroom sessions. A treatment professional who assesses the client's progress
in treatment and advises the judge frequently goes with the client. Court
proceedings are characterised by emotional testimony on the healing process,
sometimes accompanied by tears, and are frequently interspersed with cheers
from the audience. Drug Courts are becoming a key resource for criminology, the
sociology of drugs and deviance, and legal philosophy courses since they
represent the beginning and development of a new judicial trend. Drug Treatment Courts (DTCs) are
established at the judicial level to direct substance-using offenders to drug
treatment programmes. Despite the fact that DTCs vary widely in terms of, among
other things, inclusion criteria, practises, treatment services, and treatment
providers, some essential elements may be identified: (1) Services for drug and
alcohol rehab are made available to offenders. (2) The usual course of action
is a non-adversarial approach and continued court interaction. (3) Regular drug
and alcohol testing is required; (4) compliance is rewarded or punished; (5)
programme goals are monitored and evaluated throughout several court
appearances; and (6) there is close coordination between the drug court,
government agencies, and community-based organisations.
As a result, drug courts send
drug-related offenders with lesser penalties to treatment rather than to
prison. The right and
left have both found political backing for drug courts since they were first
introduced in Miami, Florida, in 1989. Both sides seek to reduce expenses,
decrease jail rates, and provide rehabilitation; proponents of drug courts
assert that they accomplish all three goals. So it comes as no surprise that
the drug court concept has gained enormous popularity in the US, going so far
as to influence American foreign policy. The therapeutic jurisprudence, which sees the law as a social
force that shapes behaviour and has consequences, holds up drug courts as examples
of its application. The idea that substantive norms and procedures can have
therapeutic or counter-therapeutic consequences, whether on purpose or not, is
essential to this normative perspective[8].
The success criteria in drug court
efficacy have been determined by numerous studies. According to Lowenkamp et
al. (2005), participants who finish the programme in less than a year typically
experience better outcomes than those who receive treatment for a longer amount
of time. This is probably because prolonged therapy is required as a result of
numerous relapses and maybe treatment interruption owing to jail time for
non-compliance. Like other forms of treatment, outpatient programmes frequently
outperform inpatient programmes in terms of effectiveness (Lowenkamp et al.,
2005). According to several studies (Lowenkamp et al. 2005; Lutze & van
Wormer, 2007; Peters & Murrin, 2000; Roman, Townsend, & Bhati, 2003),
younger, white, female individuals with moderate degrees of addiction tended to
do better than older, male, minority participants with severe addictions.[9]
Additionally, it should be mentioned
that the majority of studies on the efficiency of drug courts highlight the
fairly shoddy methodology employed (Brown, 2011; Mitchel et al., 2012). Most
research have a tendency to be retrospective, and it can be challenging to
locate complete records for all previously registered drug court participants.
The study may be skewed if a comparison group of ineligible offenders is used,
as there may be a systematic difference between eligible and ineligible
criminals (Brown, 2011). This does not necessarily imply that outcomes are
incorrect, but rather that the drug courts may not be as successful as
supporters claim. Since some regions have had drug courts for over 20 years.
The goal of therapeutic jurisprudence
is to determine how far the rule of law can be used therapeutically without
compromising other fundamental principles of the legal system, such as due
process. The therapeutic jurisprudence was first put forth as the philosophical
underpinning of the drug court movement by Judge Peggy Fulton Hora and
associates. Since then, several academics have described drug courts as an
example of therapeutic jurisprudence in action. By aiding offenders with the process of
transformation, holding them accountable for their actions, and educating them
about the patterns of their destructive substance use and associated behaviours,
the legal system serves as a catalyst for change for offenders.Other
"problem-solving" courts, such as those that deal with domestic abuse
and mental health issues, are using this strategy in many parts of the world
where the role of the court has also changed.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Drug courts are not without their flaws,
though. The effectiveness of drug courts is still a hotly debated issue,
despite being one of the most extensively examined aspects of the American
criminal justice system.
The main advantage of drug courts is
that they aid addicts in their efforts to overcome addiction and deter future
criminal conduct, which relieves the government's ongoing responsibility and
financial burden of handling low-level, non-violent criminals in overworked
courts and overcrowded jails. India must therefore establish a few drug courts
in order to save the numerous children who are falling into the drug trap.
THANK YOU
[3] (Gottfredson,
Najaka, & Kearley, 2003). Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., &
Kearley, B. (2003). Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a
randomized trial. Criminology & Public Policy,
[4] (Lutze & van
Wormer, 2007; Peters & Murrin, 2000).
[6] https://connectusfund.org/19-biggest-pros-and-cons-of-drug-courts
[7] https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/drug-courts-are-not-ans
[8] Carey,
S. M., & Finigan, M. W. (2004). A Detailed Cost Analysis in a Mature Drug
Court Setting A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Multnomah County Drug
Court. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3), 315-338.
[9] Brown,
R. (2011). Drug court effectiveness: A matched cohort study in the Dane County
Drug Treatment Court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(4),
191-201.
Article Information
ANALYSIS ON DRUG COURTS
Authors: DIVYA BHARATHI M
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/15
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.