With California jails and prisons still struggling with finding a reform for non-violent drug offenders the states recidivism rates continue to reach unprecedented numbers. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteen-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This has been a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse related issues instead of providing a way for treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policies regarding criminal justice interventions that address drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services as a diversion to incarceration. The Diversion-to-Treatment Law that was created in California is called Proposition 36 also known as the “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000”. This literature review will briefly describe various themes related to substance abuse treatment and Proposition 36. These themes are: a description of proposition-36, what population the services have been directed to, goals of the initiative, what some of the overall success rates are and how this offender diversion program has impacted the California economy.
At the same time that legislatures were ratcheting up sentences for drug possession offenses and funding more and more prisons, millions of Americans lacked access to drug and alcohol treatment, psychiatric care, housing and other crucial services (Appel et al. 2004). In November of 2000 Proposition 36 was passed by a California voting majority by a margin of 61% with $120 million dollars available for treatment service funding over a f...
... middle of paper ...
..., Urada, D., & Yang, J. (2011). Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(2), 124-134. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.09.001
Klein, D., Miller, R. E., Noble, A., & Speiglman, R. (2004). Incorporating a Public Health Approach in Drug Law: Lessons from Local Expansion of Treatment Capacity and Access under California's Proposition 36. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 723-757. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00329.x
Worrall, J. L., Hiromoto, S., Merritt, N., Du, D., Jacobson, J. O., & Iguchi, M. Y. (2009). Crime trends and the effect of mandated drug treatment: Evidence from California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 109-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.010
As offenders are diverted to community residential treatment centers, work release programs and study release centers, the system sees a decrease or stabilization of the jail population. While the alleviation of overcrowding is a benefit it is not the only purpose of diversion. A large majority of crimes are committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Studies have shown that more than half of all individuals arrested in the United States will test positive for illegal substances (NCVC, 2008). Efforts to reduce crime through incarceration usually fail because incarceration does not address the main problem, the offender’s substance abuse.
To begin, drug courts were established in Miami in 1989 during the “war on crime” era. According to Cooper (2003), “the immediate goals of the drug court were to reduce the recidivism rate of these defendants while they were awaiting disposition of their cases, reduce the failure to appear at trial rate, and provide at least some level of treatment services” (p. 1672). During the “war on crime” era, criminal rates were escalating and courts were overflowing with case loads and the drug court was implemented in order to find another way to help solve the drug problems with select offenders. Additionally, “the primary purpose of the Miami drug court was, therefore, not therapeutic, although it clearly had therapeutic elements, but, rather to promote public safety and more effective judicial supervision of defendants while awaiting trial” (Cooper, 2003, p. 1672). Providing a safe sanction for offenders as well as the community was an efficient solution to control the caseloads of drug offenders and ensure the safety of the community.
One policy one could examine to see its implications on incarceration rates in the United States is the “War on Drugs.” This war has taken place since the Nixon administration in the 1970s, and aims to eliminate the possession, importation, and solicitation of illegal substances. This war has multiple fronts in which people are currently fighting, but the domestic theatre of war is a culprit for this rise of incarceration rates. Bobo and Thompson examined this phenomenon and found, “rapid increase in incarceration rates can be traced to the "War on Drugs" and associated sentencing practices” (451). The “War on Drugs” can be seen taking place in predominately urban impoverished African-American communities. As a result, more African-Americans are being arrested for drug crimes, whether they be petty possession misdemeanor crimes or more serious felony solicitation of illegal substance crimes. Further, since these areas are more impoverished, individuals will look for other ways in order to generate income in order to support themselves and their
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison.
Additionally, I will highlight and evaluate the influences acting on individual legislators' decisions to continue support for these ineffective policies as a more general demonstration of Congress' role in the formation of our nation's drug policy strategy. Finally, I will conclude this analysis by outlining the changes I feel are necessary for future progress to be made. Primary among these changes are a general promotion of drug education and the elimination of our current system's many de-legitimating hypocrisies. However, before the specific outcomes of Congressional influence and policy impact can be evaluated, it becomes important to first review the general history and current situation of drugs today. Our present drug laws were first enacted at the beginning of the century.
We cannot afford to keep using the same approach in hopes of diminishing our drug problem in the United States. In a study posted on RAND.org, the author Jonathan P. Caulkins compares many methods we can use to help with drug crime. The first graph compares federal mandatory minimum sentences, conventional enforcement at all levels of government, and treatment of heavy users. Conventional enforcement prevented around thirty kilo grams of cocaine from being used, while federal mandatory minimums prevented around forty kilograms from being used. Treatment of heavy users blew both of the other methods out of the water.
When societies finally become comfortable with reality, they begin to abandon the murderous laws that impede their growth. Currently, the social stigma and legislated morality regarding the use of illicit drugs yield perhaps the most destructive effects on American society. Drug laws have led to the removal of non-violent citizens from society- either directly by incarceration or indirectly by death - which is genocidal in quantity and essence. I base my support of the decriminalization of all drugs on a principle of human rights, but the horror and frustration with which I voice this support is based on practicality. The most tangible effect of the unfortunately labeled "Drug War" in the United States is a prison population larger than Russia's and China's, and an inestimable death toll that rivals the number of American casualties from any given war, disease or catastrophe.
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
Inciardi, Dr. James A., A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Avialable: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/contdrug.txt
The biggest question people ask is if the “war on drugs” was successful. According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), “The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences.” The best way to measure the effectiveness of the “war on drugs” is to focus on these basic questions; Is drug use down? Is crime down? and Are drugs less available? Since 1988, drug use by individuals ages 12 and over has remained stable according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). The number of individuals reporting any drug use has increased by approximately 7 million and the number of those who reported drug use in previous months or previous years has remained unchanged. The Organization Monitoring the Future studies drug use, access to drugs, and perspectives towards drugs of junior and senior high school students nationwide. Results of a study conducted in 2005 showed a minor decline in substance abuse by older teens, but drug use among eighth graders stopped remained the same. However, the changes were not statistically significant and ultimately there was no reduction in substance abuse among young students. Crime in the United States has decreased significantly since 1993, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. On the other hand,
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.
The “Tough on Crime” and “War on Drugs” policies of the 1970s – 1980s have caused an over populated prison system where incarceration is policy and assistance for prevention was placed on the back burner. As of 2005, a little fewer than 2,000 prisoners are being released every day. These individuals have not gone through treatment or been properly assisted in reentering society. This has caused individuals to reenter the prison system after only a year of being release and this problem will not go away, but will get worst if current thinking does not change. This change must be bigger than putting in place some under funded programs that do not provide support. As the current cost of incarceration is around $30,000 a year per inmate, change to the system/procedure must prevent recidivism and the current problem of over-crowed prisons.
In recent discussions of prison reform, a controversial issue has been whether diversion programs are more beneficial than not. On the one hand, some argue that diversion programs give convicted criminals a chance to hopefully better themselves and get back into society. On the other hand, however, others argue that these programs are allowing dangerous criminals back into the streets with no guarantee of them changing their behaviors. In sum, then, the issue is whether society and the government should allow these unguaranteed hopes to continue. While some believe that diversion programs may be a good substitute for prison, diversion programs are not an efficient substitute because they release potentially dangerous criminals and felons out onto the streets.
Not only has the drug war failed to reduce violent and property crime, but, by shifting criminal justice resources (the police, courts, prisons, probation officers, etc.) away from directly fighting such crime, the drug war has put citizens’ lives and property at greater risk, Benson and Rasmussen contend. “Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might have to be sacrificed.” To support this conclusion, Benson and Rasmussen compare data on drug law enforcement and crime trends between states, and debunk numerous misconceptions about drug use and criminality.
The link between drug use and crime is not a new one. For more than twenty years, both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice have funded many studies to try to better understand the connection. One such study was done in Baltimore on heroin users. This study found high rates of criminality among users during periods of active drug use, and much lower rates during periods of nonuse (Ball et al. 1983, pp.119-142). A large number of people who abuse drugs come into contact with the criminal justice system when they are sent to jail or to other correctional facilities. The criminal justice system is flooded with substance abusers. The need for expanding drug abuse treatment for this group of people was recognized in the Crime Act of 1994, which for the first time provided substantial resources for federal and state jurisdictions. In this paper, I will argue that using therapeutic communities in prisons will reduce the recidivism rates among people who have been released from prison. I am going to use the general theory of crime, which is based on self-control, to help rationalize using federal tax dollars to fund these therapeutic communities in prisons. I feel that if we teach these prisoners some self-control and alternative lifestyles that we can keep them from reentering the prisons once they get out. I am also going to describe some of today’s programs that have proven to be very effective. Gottfredson and Hirschi developed the general theory of crime.