Drug Treatment Courts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drug Treatment Courts

Name:

Date:

Institution:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Many countries in the world are fighting against drug and substance abuse. Governments have been forced to increase spending on anti-drug campaigns and law enforcement due to the widespread drug trafficking, drug abuse, gang violence and rampant poverty crimes. Great emphasis on being placed on the impact of substance and drug abuse as well as crime. Indeed, there is high monetary and social cost associated with drug abuse and most countries have experienced this. Drug abuse contributes to a decrease in worker’s productivity, loss in family income, stigmatization and loss of civil rights among other consequences. The impact is not only evident in the health care sector but also in other sectors. Countries with fragile economies, hard-hard pressed health care systems and high youth population economies feel a great burden brought about by drug abuse.

The cost to drug users is greater since they may face many problems beyond poor health for instance imprisonment or jail term, payment of fines and other penalties. In most countries, the jail terms and penalties are not often coupled with a drug treatment program, meaning that arrestees have no option but to go through an uncontrolled withdrawal from drug abuse on their own[1]. An alternative to imprisonment is a court-controlled treatment for drug addicts referred to as Drug Treatment Courts (DTC), a special docket within the court consisting of cases involving criminals who have engaged themselves in drug-related and nonviolent drug offences directly linked to drug addiction and those participating in the court-controlled program. DTCs have increased in response to the growing number of lawbreakers with drug-related challenges. According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the United States has over 2000 such programs.  DTCs are also prevalent in other countries like the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. What is the aims, practices, efficacy and challenges associated with Drug Treatment Courts?

The aims of the DTCs

Reduction in criminal cases as well as drug and substance abuse

Drug Treatments Courts are designed to aid the treatment of disorders linked to substance abuse and give opportunities for change from the treatment of imprisonment. They are meant to reduce the levels of drug and alcohol abuse as well as criminal behaviour among eligible nonaggressive drug offenders[2]. The courts require the participants to stop drug and substance abuse and encourages them to be accountable and responsible for their behaviour. Besides, offenders are expected to fulfil the legal duties associated with the crime they committed.  Drug court manages to curtail drug use amongst participants through the provision of a careful treatment program.

The courts provide services that are tailored to meet the needs of a specific group of people. Counselling, education and other services are provided to promote immediate treatment of the structure, interventions and substance use disorders.  Family drug courts focus on the treatment of parents having the disorders to facilitate the unification and stabilization of families affected[3]. With this program, parents are likely to become more financially, emotionally and personally self-sufficient, something that promotes effective parenting. When an offender qualifies for a drug court and adheres to the regulation and activities mandated by a judge, then there is no doubt that there would be a significantly low level of criminal behaviour. Generally, graduates of the Drug Treatment Courts have low rates of re-offences compare to those who are often punished in the absence of any public health intervention.

Increased personal health

The program focuses on improving personal health of the affected persons by offering advisory and treatment services to them. Drug addicts are often susceptible to various diseases like lung cancer, alcoholic liver diseases, inflammation in the stomach, heart disease, brain damage among other disorders. The DTC greatly support the criminal justice system by facilitating the improvement of the personal health status of offenders besides reducing the rate of recidivism[4]. DTC bridges that gap between public health care and the judicial system. With DTC, eligible offenders can access the resources needed to improve their health. Furthermore, the treatment courts can keep offenders for a longer time, making it possible for the judiciary to impose health-related restrictions which are not included in other forms of intervention. That means that, when an individual stays in the program, the possibilities of him or her achieving better personal health outcome increases significantly.

Improve social function

            To improve social functioning, the DTCs provides offenders with a chance to receive treatment and undergo rehabilitation in the course of the prison sentence, a move that enhances an individual’s ability to develop a good relationship with others in the community or society. DTCs reduces the risks posed by the drug and alcohol-impaired people when they drive a vehicle. Additionally, the courts help individuals overcome situations that lead to family disintegration and social isolation. DTCs graduates can create a good strong relationship that promotes effective networking and participate in meaningful activities and become more productive rather than participation in criminal offences.

Reduced threat of public health and safety

One of the main goals is to create a sustainable environment for all individuals by increasing the level of security and safety. DTCs are now being used to support rehabilitation services and encourage a complete change of behaviour and development in health.  Treatment services, the supervision of defendant and monitoring are intense in DTCs to ensure that graduates are equipped with skills and knowledge that will help them in future with a low likelihood to re-offend and create an insecure environment in the public domain.

Cost-saving and effective allocation of criminal justice resources

Drug court program was developed to reduce the economic and public health cost related to drug trafficking, abuse and criminal offences. They save the costs which are often consumed in time-consuming drug cases and allow courts to allocate criminal justice resources more effectively to more severe cases and criminals who pose a great risk to the safety of people in the community[5]. Moreover, they reduce the expenditure of health care services meant to help drug addicts recover from various illnesses due to the reduced number of drug addicts in society.

The practices of the DTCs

Drug Treatment Courts often follow a case management method that includes, a treatment-oriented approach, prompt interventions, non-adversarial proceedings, involvement of judges, the establishment of goals as well as rules, Teamwork (a team that includes the prosecutor, the judge, defense attorney, trial officer as well as  treatment provider), offender liability with graduated approvals as well as reward and regular drug testing.  The key element of the DTC model is treatment[6]. Drug Treatment Courts use some form of treatment which may vary depending on the quantity and quality including the approach used, something that is attributed to the differences in governmental jurisdictions and available resources.

The initial process involves an examination of an offender to determine an appropriate treatment plan for him or her. The plan may consist of three or more phases which typically starts with cleansing or refinement through group or individual counselling and concludes with rehabilitation or aftercare program like vocational training. Regular court appearances and drug testing are carried out at all stages. A defendant might be expected to redo one or two stages of the program in case there is a challenge with drug use. In case a defendant is dismissed from the program since he or she apparently cannot stop abusing drugs or is once more arrested due to drug-related offence, the person often referred to another court for the nature of the initial charge. A key distinguishing feature of the Drug Treatment court which makes it different from traditional courts is that defendants are likely to go through some relapse. DTC acknowledges that addiction is a “chronic disease”[7]. But then, this does not mean that Drug Treatment courts have permissive programs. The participants in DTC are monitored more closely as compared to those in traditional probations.

Drug Treatment Courts follows the disease approach to drug-dependence and that such conditions are chronic hence higher possibilities of relapses. Such failures are often dealt with although not by instant discharge from the program. In some courts, the approval for a positive drug test is the least extent of punishment required to reduce criminal behaviour and drug use. The participants in a standard DTC model function in various ways as compared to the standard criminal process. The judge is the team leaders and the most key person in the treatment team. Judges who do not understand how this model operates cannot effectively deal with defendants who always come before the court. Judges ought to determine if the offender is making some progress or not. While monitoring offenders judges become taskmasters and mentors. They are expected to threaten, exhort, encourage and congratulate participant for their progress.

The prosecuting attorney takes the role that is different from traditional court systems. In this case, prosecutors are not expected to view a case on grounds of whether or not it could be won but instead, consider if the defendant will benefit from the Drug Treatment program or not. They must be ready to accept the therapeutic and rehabilitative approach of the Drug Treatment Court. Similarly, the role of the defense counsel is different from the same role in the traditional court system, the defense counsel are expected to help in the screening and evaluation process whereby decisions are made on whether offenders  are eligible for the drug treatment program or no. Unlike in traditional courts where the defense counsel tries to reduce the extent of consents applied to an offender, the defense counsel carry out its functions to keep the offender or defendant in the program in DTC[8]. The counsel advises the offenders to forego a typical defense mechanism like a move to suppress the evidence. In DTC, defense attorney encourages offenders to be straightforward before the judges in the court and acknowledge wrongdoing.

The agencies and the persons offering the treatment constituent of the court’s sentence also take a different perspective when it comes to DTC. Treatment providers must be present in all court secessions. This allows the court to have immediate and regular access to important information regarding treatment, making it possible for the court to impose immediate rewards for success or approvals for failure.

Generally, the DTC employs or uses supervision of the judicial authorities, counselling sessions, urine analysis and sanctions for non –compliance and compliance. The model makes use of the multidisciplinary team as suggested before to accomplish its objectives. The criminal justice system works in liaison with health service systems to offer drug addicts or drug-dependent offenders with strategies to recuperate from addiction and live a crime-free and productive life. The following is a summary of DTC practices.

• Identification of persons involved in the criminal justice system due to drug abuse.
• Identification of eligible participants who will undergo rehabilitation and treatment programs
• Provision of intensive treatment and services for offenders. These services include vocational, literacy and mental health services.
• Carrying out frequent and random drug tests
• Regular reviews of the hearings before judges. The judge reviews the offender’s progress and compliance with the requirements of the DTC recognizes the progress made and determines the best ways of addressing the challenges encountered
• Responding to noncompliance events like failure to appear for treatment sessions, court hearing or drug test which can amount to disqualification from participation or termination of the program, assignments to community service among others[9].
• The continuing reduction in supervision as individuals gain sobriety and benefit from treatment services offered.
• Graduation from the program after 1or beyond of continued progress in treatment

The efficacy of DTCs

Research indicates that despite the challenges associated with the DTC programs, they are more effective in reducing criminal offences than the traditional court systems. Apart from punishing offenders, the program is meant to help them recover from drug addiction and help them acquire skills that they can use to sustain themselves once they graduate from DTC. The program seems to be effective in creating credible threats for future punishment for drug court clienteles and approvals due to non-compliance[10]. The program recognizes the possibilities of relapses and recidivism and when this happens offenders are required to begin the process. Some are referred to other courts where they are expected to go through the same process until they recover.

Drug courts represent an improvement over the old-fashioned court systems when it comes to the reduction of recidivism for offenders. Drug Treatment courts emphasize the importance of treatment and recovery process for drug addicts[11]. It is a model that encourages individuals to accept the mistake and get help rather than defending themselves for the crimes they committed. The DTC model focuses on the significance of drug treatment program as a rehabilitative mechanism and intensive supervision as liability mechanism[12]. As opposed to traditional courts that focus on punishing and providing vocational training services for offenders, the Drug Treatment Courts focuses on the long-term impact on the offenders by helping them overcome addiction. DTC models include monitoring programs, performance evaluations and measures that support capacity building. In a nutshell, an offender who goes through DTC programs is less likely to engage in crimes once they graduate. Hence, DTC can be considered more effective.

 

Challenges faced by DTCs

Sustainability

DTCs lack adequate and appropriate resources to sustain their operations. The lack of necessary resources renders them unstable and sustainable. Some of these courts have failed to guarantee quality services due to lack of enough support from the criminal justice system[13]. Good inter-agency cooperation and the intervention of the judiciary is essential for drug courts. Countries with limited resources are less likely to address this challenge.

Specialization and judicial capacity

There is a general lack of specific training and sensibility of judges to DTCs.  Many Judges are committed to traditional approaches to dealing with criminal offences. They are rarely prepared to provide therapeutic tools and services needed to help drug dependence offenders[14]. The DTC model requires managers to take the lead in ensuring that offenders access DTC services and provide the financial and institutional capacity to meet the demands of the intervention.

Relevance and effectiveness

DTCs must clearly explain potential beneficiaries of the services offered and identify individuals who need the services. They have to ensure that they give more attention to individuals who are likely to successfully undergo the treatment[15]. DTCs are considered as an alternative to criminal punishment but some scholars argue that it should be regarded as a step toward the punishment since those who fail to go through the treatment process end up being imprisoned without alternative consideration.

Conclusion

Drug and substance abuse is among the main challenges experienced in many countries across the world. Some governments are trying as much as possible to reduce the effects associated with drug abuse by introducing more stringent actions against those who engage in drug-related criminal offences while other countries like the United States are assigning greater important on Drug Treatment Courts in a bid to reduce crime rates as well as social, economic and health costs linked to drug and substance abuse. DTCs uses an improved approach to drug-related cases. These courts aim at reducing criminal offences, enhancing personal health through treatment and rehabilitation, improving social function and public safety and reducing the cost of drug and substance abuse. Some of the practices of the DTC are similar to traditional courts but many of them are different from old-fashioned courts. Although, DTCs face some challenges they seem to be more effective than traditional courts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Fulkerson, Andrew. “The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice.” Contemporary     Justice Review 12, no. 3 (2009): 253-267

Fulton Hora, Hon Peggy. “A dozen years of drug treatment courts: Uncovering our theoretical     foundation and the construction of a mainstream paradigm.” Substance use & misuse 37,        no. 12-13 (2002): 1469-1488.

Gottfredson, Denise C., Stacy S. Najaka, and Brook Kearley. “Effectiveness of drug treatment     courts: Evidence from a randomized trial.” Criminology & Public Policy 2, no. 2 (2003): 171-196.

Guzmán Rodríguez, D. E. (2012). IDPC Briefing Paper-Drug Courts: Scope and   Challenges of an Alternative to Incarceration. Available at SSRN 2184815.

Haisley, Stephane Jackson. “The drug treatment court concept: The Jamaican drug courts.”          (2013).

Safar, M. E. “Epidemiological findings imply that goals for drug treatment of hypertension need to be revised.” (2001): 1188-1190.

Somers, Julian M., Lauren Currie, AKM Moniruzzaman, Faith Eiboff, and Michelle Patterson.    “Drug treatment court of Vancouver: an empirical evaluation of     recidivism.” International Journal of Drug Policy 23, no. 5 (2012): 393-400.

Somers, Julian M., Stefanie N. Rezansoff, and AKM Moniruzzaman. “Comparative analysis of    recidivism outcomes following drug treatment court in Vancouver,       Canada.” International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 58, no.            6 (2014): 655-671.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Fulton Hora, Hon Peggy. “A dozen years of drug treatment courts: Uncovering our theoretical foundation and the construction of a mainstream paradigm.” Substance use & misuse 37, no. 12-13 (2002): 1469-1488.

[2] Safar, M. E. “Epidemiological findings imply that goals for drug treatment of hypertension need to be revised.” (2001): 1188-1190.

[3] Ibid

[4] Somers, Julian M., Lauren Currie, AKM Moniruzzaman, Faith Eiboff, and Michelle Patterson. “Drug treatment court of Vancouver: an empirical evaluation of recidivism.” International Journal of Drug Policy 23, no. 5 (2012): 393-400.

[5] Somers, Julian M., Lauren Currie, AKM Moniruzzaman, Faith Eiboff, and Michelle Patterson. “Drug treatment court of Vancouver: an empirical evaluation of recidivism.” International Journal of Drug Policy 23, no. 5 (2012): 393-400.

[6] Fulkerson, Andrew. “The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice.” Contemporary Justice Review 12, no. 3 (2009): 253-267.

[7] Ibid

[8] Fulkerson, Andrew. “The drug treatment court as a form of restorative justice.” Contemporary Justice Review 12, no. 3 (2009): 253-267

[9] Haisley, Stephane Jackson. “The drug treatment court concept: The Jamaican drug courts.” (2013).

[10] Gottfredson, Denise C., Stacy S. Najaka, and Brook Kearley. “Effectiveness of drug treatment   courts: Evidence from a randomized trial.” Criminology & Public Policy 2, no. 2 (2003): 171-196

[11] Somers, Julian M., Stefanie N. Rezansoff, and AKM Moniruzzaman. “Comparative analysis of recidivism outcomes following drug treatment court in Vancouver, Canada.” International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology 58, no. 6 (2014): 655-671.

[12] IbId

[13]Guzmán Rodríguez, Diana Esther. “IDPC Briefing Paper-Drug Courts: Scope and Challenges of an Alternative to Incarceration.” Available at SSRN 2184815 (2012).

[14]Ibid

[15]. Ibid