Sharon’s drug addiction emerged at the age of 22. She started drinking alcohol at parties, not imagining its future consequences. Drugs replaced the alcohol and she began smoking marijuana. She believed it of little harm to her because she did not consider it a “hard” drug like cocaine or morphine. Fueled by her personal and family problems, Sharon’s abuse of crack cocaine then began. To fund her drug addiction, she worked as a prostitute and a hustler for drug dealers, but started selling drugs herself to make a larger profit. Police arrested her and sent her to jail, but Sharon returned to her old life immediately after her release., Sharon unknowingly sold to undercover police officers in January of 2010, who sent her to prison once more. …show more content…
Statistics show the number of inmates serving time in the United States for drug crimes at forty-eight percent. This equates to over half a million people in jail for drug related offenses (Mann 37). Drug courts keep drug addicts and abusers out of prison. Margaret Dooley-Sammuli and Nastassia Walsh define drug courts as “programs that seek to reduce drug use through mandated drug treatment and close judicial oversight” (135). The drug court system places people in facilities similar to halfway houses for at least one year. Here they stay sober due to random drug testing, and appear before a judge who tracks and monitors the person’s progress (Huseman 140). Every person convicted of non-violent drug crimes deserves drug courts as a viable prison alternative because these programs reduce cost and show higher rates of …show more content…
. . [c]laims that drug courts have significantly reduced costs . . . are unsupported by the evidence” (137). Although drug courts do cost more than probation alone, they cost much less than prison. A single inmate in prison for one year costs 24,000 dollars. After spending time in prison, the justice system places the inmate on parole, which costs roughly 1,200 dollars a year. A convict spending just one year in jail and one year on parole cost the American taxpayers a total of 25,200 dollars. Drug courts, however, cost about 3,000 dollars for the treatment, with a duration typically a year’s time (Huseman 143). The American Justice System would save an average of 22,000 dollars a year per prisoner by using drug courts instead of prisons and parole. Dooley-Sammuli and Walsh’s statement that drug courts have not “significantly reduced costs” has no basis in fact. The availability of many statistics that show the reduced cost to taxpayers prove that drug courts do reduce the financial burden on American
“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
A 1997 RAND Corporation study found that treatment of heavy drug users was almost ten times more cost effective in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crime than longer mandatory sentences (Echols, 2014). Other studies have shown that mandatory penalties have no demonstrable marginal or short-term effects on overall crime reduction either. Congress established mandatory sentences in order to incarcerate high-level drug criminals, but according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, only 11 percent of drug charged prisoners fit that description (Echols, 2014). Most of those incarcerated are low-level offenders, whose spots in drug trafficking are easily filled by other people. Mandatory minimum sentencing is essentially a waste of scarce criminal justice resources and federal funds that could be used elsewhere, and The Smarter Sentencing Act’s reduction of mandatory minimums can be the first step in eliminating minimum sentencing altogether. Ideally, given the opportunity for discretion, judges would be more inclined to issue more effective alternatives to incarceration, such as rehabilitation programs and/or
In addition, the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (BCDTC) is a jurisdiction of interest whose success will be examined. The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court was established in 1994 prior to a response by a report presented by the Bar Association of Baltimore city in 1990. There was a rough estimate of about 85% of crimes committed in Baltimore city were related to addiction. The BCDTC are consistent in intensive supervision, a minimum of three meeting with probation officers per month, two home visits and verification of employment status per month. The experimental research design began in February 1997 with 235 clients randomly assigned to either control for circuit courts or control for district court and all the data were
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.
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. By helping unsteady criminals regain their health, society would see an exceptional reduction in the amount of crimes committed. Although some
Currently there are 80,000 drug offenders in federal prison, making up a little over 60 percent of the prisons’ population (Stewart 113-114). 94 percent of the drug offenders were sentenced under one of the four mandatory minimum statutes passed by Congress between 1984 and 1990 in an attempt to reduce drug use in the United States. Even further, it was in 1998 that “57 percent of drug defendants entering federal prison were first offenders, and 88 percent of them had no weapons.” On average, these 80,000 prisoners are sentenced to approximately 6 and ½ years in prison (Stewart 113-114). And it is due to the prohibition of mitigating circumstances that leads to these situations. The United States’ prisons are overcrowded. New York Times reported that despite the United States only is home to less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the country provides approximately one quarter of the world’s prisoners (Liptak). Yet some will insist that Todd must have been guilty in someway or another, or maybe he was simply an innocent who fell through the inevitable cracks in the system. On the contrary, that is the exact problem with mandatory sentencing, it’s setup allows people to not only slip through cracks, but to land face first and watch their life
Drug courts are, as the title states, for offenders with drug problems. The participants chosen for this method agree to terms of treatment, drug testing, and counseling. Their participation can lower their sentences and sanctions or even drop the charges against them completely. Supervision is used to monitor the offender’s participation in the various programs they are assigned, while also verifying their abstinence from drug use through testing (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2011). According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service website, in 2009, there were about 2,400 drug courts in the U.S. These courts are separated into smaller categories based on the age or circumstances of the offenders, such as juveniles, adults, families, veterans, and even college students (OJP, 2010).
can become a major source of income, not only for the inmate, but also for
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 purpose of this paper is to inform about effect the drug treatment programs in prison are and who they affect the most. The programs are meant to for re-offenders with an extensive drug record. Some of the questions the researchers asked was how well do the programs work for the inmates, who does it effect, and does different drugs affect the programs. In 2002 there was 250 prison based drug treatment programs in 40 states. In 2004 the number went up to 290 treatment programs in 44 states. (Farebee et al. 1999) The main focus of the programs are to help inmates so they do not reoffend once released from prison. Drug treatment programs help the different inmates by using different programs.
The first step in ending the issue of drug use and abuse in our country is to cure the drug users from their addiction in a safe, controlled manner. As confirmed in an article from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Drug addiction is a chronic disease characterized by compulsive, or uncontrollable, drug seeking and use despite harmful consequences and changes in the brain, which can be long lasting.” (“Treatment Approaches for Drug Addiction”) The addiction of drugs is an actual disease, and cannot be brushed off as something that can be stopped at any point in time. Drug addiction is just as serious as any other diagnosed disease and must be cured accordingly. Prison will not benefit those addicted to drugs because it is a disease that must be treated, just as any other illness is. In an attempt to end an addiction without help in a safe environment, dangerous consequences could result.
In the juvenile drug court a docket with selected delinquency cases are referred to a designated judge. These youth have been identified for having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs. The juvenile drug court judge maintains close oversight of each case through frequent court report updates through the probation officer and the therapist. The judge both services as the team leader and serve as an integral part of a team that comprises representatives from treatment, juvenile justice, social services, school and vocational training programs, law enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. This team determines how to address the problems of substance abuse and his or her family, which lead the youth into contact with the justice system (Cooper, 1998).
The harsh punishment for drug crimes in the United States of America is not working. “With roughly half a million people behind bars in the U.S. for nonviolent drug offenses, drugs are as plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier, 2013). Even with very harsh long sentences and many people imprisoned drug use is as common as ever in America. ‘We cannot close our eyes anymore’ to the cost in human lives destroyed and taxpayer dollars wasted” (Holcomb, 2015). Harsh drug penalties are destroying American citizens lives and is costing a lot of money from taxpayers. “Yet, people who want treatment can often expect to endure an obstacle course just to get help” (Grenier, 2013). The Unites States government is spending a large amount of money on arresting and imprisoning drug users, yet are putting little to no focus on funding drug medical help for
However, legalization will be profitable to global economies in two ways. It will allow for money spent on drug law enforcement to be spent more wisely and will increase revenue. There have been escalating costs spent on the war against drugs and countless dollars spent on rehabilitation. Every year in the United States, ten billion dollars are spent on enforcing drug laws alone. Drug violators accounted for about forty percent of all criminals in federal prisons (Rosenthal 1996). In 1989, a Republican county executive of Mercer County, N.J., estimated that it would cost approximately one
Right now in the United States there are over 2 million people incarcerated in the country’s prisons and jails. Out of this population about one-quarter of these inmates have been convicted of a drug offense. With drug offense arrests increasing nationwide and the prison population increasing there is an alternative to incarceration has been used over the past two decades in many cities across the country. This alternative is in the form of local drug courts that are now found in most major cities in the United States. A drug court is a specialized court in which the judge, prosecutor, public defender or private attorney, probation officers, and treatment counselors work together to help chemically dependent offenders obtain needed treatment and rehabilitation in an attempt to break the cycle of addiction and further criminal offenses. Some argue that treatment rather than incarceration is a waste of time and valuable resources that could be used elsewhere. Research however has shown that court ordered treatment is the best option for drug offenders. Treatments through drug court has proven to be less expensive than incarceration and has also been shown to reduce crime and provide a lower relapse and re-arrest rate for offenders that are placed in drug courts as opposed to those that are not.