Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Prison rehabilitation theory
Treatment in American prisons
Prison rehabilitation theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Proposition 36
The Real Truth
As you might already be aware there is a ballot initiative on this upcoming November’s election about drugs, and drug treatment. This measure is called Proposition 36. If this measure were to pass, state law would be changed, so that certain non-violent adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, not prison. Right now California is ranked number one in the nation for its rate of imprisonment for drug offenders. If Proposition 36 passes, California could become number one for its treatment for drug offenders. The measure also provides state funds to counties to operate the drug treatment programs. Additionally, studies have shown that drug treatment is a far more effective than prison in reducing future criminal activity. Robert Roseman, a 51-year-old heroin addict from Sacramento says, “I was always able to get drugs in prison…all you’re going to learn in prison is to do crime better.”
Stephen V. Manley, President of Drug Court Professionals says that,
“Proposition 36 doesn’t provide “court-supervised” drug treatment. It ties the hands of judges, hurts legitimate treatment and effectively decriminalizes heroin, methamphetamine and other illegal drugs. Drug courts hold drug abusers accountable with regular drug testing and consequences for failing treatment— accountability not found in Proposition 36.”
Drug testing is a part of court-supervised drug treatment everywhere in California today, and it will continue to be under Proposition 36. There are no legal barriers to drug testing. Judges can and will order appropriate levels of testing of offenders placed in treatment under the initiative's system; Proposition 36 simply does not tie judges' hands by prescribing a one-size-fits-all regimen for all offenders. A positive drug test can be treated as a violation of probation. Judges can also require individual offenders to pay for their own drug testing, as they do now in the "drug court" system, if they can afford it. (The cost of a test can be $4 to $7 per test.) The fact is tens of millions of dollars in state and federal funds already go to drug testing of criminal offenders through the court system and probation system. If more money is needed, this can easily be appropriated from the hundreds of millions of dollars saved each year by this initiative. Proposition 36 merely requires that its monetary appropriation for treatment programs must go to providing treatment services, where the need is so great.
Treatment for substance abuse vital to reduce prison recidivism rate, The Medical News, March 14, 2008,http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/03/14/36306.aspx
Proposition 30 (prop 30 or SB11) is supported by the schools and local public safety protection Act of 2012. Prop 30 is a tax initiative led by California governor Jerry Brown. Prop 30 is aimed at reducing forecasted budget cuts to public schools also higher education, by increasing the California sales tax from 7.25% to 7.50%for the next four years. It also will create three new tax brackets for taxable incomes. Incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000 and $500,000 will pay more in taxes for the next seven years. With the extra money being saved will go towards adding more classes for higher education students. Also to help reduce California’s state budget, prop 30 should raise $6 billion annually form raised taxes.
Harrell’s essay also introduces other facets of drug courts to be researched in an effort to understand inconsistences in drug court practices from jurisdictions across the country. In particular, Harrell notes that eligibility, treatment availability, and court practices vary significantly from one drug court to the next. He brings light to the possible correlation between drug court practices and recidivism, and the importance of understanding which court practices contribute positively toward successful program
“The nation 's first drug court was established in Florida in 1989, and there are now more than 2,500 operating nationwide” (Rankinf and Teegardin). From that moment in 1989, America’s judicial system decided to re-evaluate how the courts had been approaching drug addiction and crime. Instead
Once these individuals in rehab serve there sentence the majority of them, won’t look straight to the next opportunity to get high, but the next opportunity for a better future after being encouraged in rehab to accomplish something in life, compared to someone’s attitude coming out of prison. One story involved a man named Richard with his wife Marcia. She was an addict who was often jailed for it, but Anthony believed like many others that “addiction can be overcome with proper help. He believed that the solution was to get her into a mental hospital [and] get her whatever she needs – Xanax, morphine, to get her chemical imbalance right. Show her some respect. (114)” Give her some working skills, so once she gets out she is capable of being successful but instead she kept getting “kicked down the steps” by the criminal justice system. The jailing and torture of addicts is routine to people serving cases for drug related offenses, who are often not built to endure prison, let alone jail. “The Justice Department estimates that 216,000 people are raped in these prisons every year. (This is the number of rapes, not the number of rapes – that is much higher.) (109)” This is ultimately shows the simple fact that many people are not built to endure
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era (“A Brief History,” 2014). The common belief was that stiff penalties discouraged people from using drugs and enhanced public safety (“A Brief History,” 2014). That theory, however, was proven false and rather than less illegal drug activity, there are simply more people incarcerated. Studies show that over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on drug charges, a 116 percent percentage rise since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale use of imprisonment on
Kabler, Phil. “Public assistance drug testing faces questions.” Charleston Gazette, The (WV) 12 Mar. 2009: Newspaper Source. Web. 04 Feb. 2011.
, implying that because they are poor, they must be drug addicts. However, individuals that support the law, express that the plan being put in effect is to ensure that tax payer’s money isn’t being thrown away on people who only plan to abuse this assistance. Out of the fifty states, only nine have proceeded with the drug testing of candidates. The drug testing has proven to be quite expensive. Consequently, some of the states only test subjects with whom they find suspicion, or that have admitted to drug use in the past. Though the proposal of drug testing Welfare applicants appears to be a good idea to weed out spongers from getting assistance, it seems that more money may be wasted on the testing itself, which would be imprudent in proving this law worthwhile.
What is Drug Court? According to Siegel (2013), drug courts are courts designed for non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems who require integrated sanctions and services such as mandatory drug testing, substance abuse treatment, supervised release, and parole. These courts are designed to help reduce housing nonviolent offenders with violent inmates. Drug courts work on a non-adversarial, coact approach.
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
In 1989, a Republican county executive of Mercer County, N.J., estimated that it would cost approximately one billion dollars to build the jail space required to house all the drug users in Trenton alone (Roffman 1982). All of this money could be spent on things of greater importance. Not only has the drug problem increased, but the drug related problems are on the rise. Drug abuse is a killer worldwide. Some are born addicts (crack babies), while others develop addictions later in life.
Gray, Judge James P. Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About
The National Drug Control Strategy was issued two years ago to reduce drug use among teenagers and adults. The success of the President’s drug policy can be measured by its results. The student drug testing approach has reduced drug use and discouraged first time users significantly. Communities have been more actively involved in anti-drug programs for youth and adults. The increase in budget for law enforcement will enhance their effectiveness in detaining drug lords and cartels.
And they rely on the discrimination and skill of a judge.The numerous studies indicate these courts significantly reduce crime and drug use. About half the participants in adult drug court finish the program, although the number varies widely from court to court, often depending on the skill of the judge. Federal judges are now beginning to create programs modeled on the state drug courts that allow for similar alternatives to incarceration for low level drug crimes, according to Dave
Mandatory drug tests have proven to help teenagers reduce the use of drugs and alcohol in their daily lives. If young people get used to it when they are young, it’s proven that they would have a difficult time trying to loss their addiction to the substance. Helps the person without any criminal chargers but with all the help needed. They even have different types of drug tests to show the time period of when the person might have taken a drug recently.