1. Title of Research Topic - Juvenile substance abuse: A comparison of effectiveness and recidivism rates among offenders within drug-court programs and those sentenced to traditional sentencing.
2. Introduction of Topic – The late 20th century witnessed an alarming increase in substance abuse in the United States, and today, it still continues to rage on, coupled with a continuously expanding inmate population. Therefore, in order to battle this disastrous obstacle, the first ever drug court was established in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989. According to the National Institute of Justice, currently there are 1,558 drug courts within the United States, and 409 which are juvenile drug courts. The purpose of drug courts are to serve as an alternative to incarceration for drug offenders, based on a treatment-oriented approach. The research question that I have developed will address the effectiveness of drug courts on juvenile offenders compared to those adjudicated to traditional sentencing (i.e. Probation, Incarceration). Although many research has been conducted on the effectiveness of adult drug courts, less is known about effectiveness on
…show more content…
This study mainly focused on the effectiveness of the drug court in Jefferson Country of Texas, which includes the cities of Beaumont, Port Arthur, Nederland, Port Neches, and Groves. Gummelt & Sullivan (2016), explains that the Jefferson juvenile drug court program utilizes a team approach, consisting of a judge, drug court coordinator, supervision officer, defense attorney, case manager, counselor and mentors. Furthermore, the authors claim that most juveniles completes the program within 12 months, and program is it tailored to educate as well as promote a healthy lifestyle of the
During the 1970s and 1980s, the use of illegal drugs was growing; which undertook a war on drugs. As of June 2001, there were a total of 697 drug court programs, serving around 226,000 offenders and another 427 programs being planned (Office of Justice Programs, 2001). The drug court can be seen as a social movement to crack down on drugs. Although the drug court model continues to evolve, there are some key components. Some of these key components are, a non adversarial approach that emphasizes teamwork; eligible participants are defined early and promptly placed in the drug court program; and abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and drug testing, and so on.
The implementation of juvenile justice programs hold offenders accountable for wrongdoing, but prevent formal system involvement through discretionary methods (DeFosset, Schooley, Abrams, Kuo, & Gase, 2017). However, due to the case burden and cost, research continues to show the need and value of the peer/youth court (Smith & Chonody, 2010). Due to the time shortage of research time, the cost comparison for the peer/youth court implementation based on each of the court models presented. Each model provides a level of cost savings based on staffing requirements and available facilities. The limitation of the assessment is due to time restrictions, foundations, charities, and community-funding interviews were not conducted for implementation
The United States boasts their juvenile justice system as one which rehabilitates youth and focuses on keeping juvenile delinquents out of the system in their future. However, it is apparent through the president’s statement that America could make far more advancements in the functions of the juvenile justice system. While many great reforms have taken place in
In 1989, the first Drug Court was created in Miami-Dade County after the courts were fed up with the same offenders and the growing drug cases. A group of individuals employed with the justice system decided to look for a better method of trying drug offenses by forming a drug court division. The group of individual’s solution for the repeated offenses and offenders was to combine drug therapy treatment with the legal authority of the courts. As a team, the drug court concept was effective in c correcting the lifestyle and behaviors of drug offenders. With its success, Miami-Dade Drug court sparked an effective trend and sparked the formation of 492 Drug Courts in the United States and continues to influence justice systems.
The justice system implemented drug courts because they were tired of seeing the same faces in court for the exact same reasons. This lead a group of justice professionals to the idea that the system was broken and needed to be fixed because there had to be an alternative solution. Thus, the creation of drug courts which allows individuals with drug problems to attend a facility to kick there addiction instead of being put into jail. The first drug court was established in 1989 in Miami-Dade county, Florida in response to the growing crack cocaine problem in the area. This drug courts sparked a national revolution and the implementation of drug courts have changed millions of lives.
Overview: The purpose of the Executive Summary, The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Executive Summary (Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, Lindquist, 2011), was to show how Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center (UI-JCP), RTI International (RTI) and Center for Court Innovation (CCI) conducted research on how drug courts impact the overall crimes related to drugs. The main issue being explored is how well the drug courts are doing to help lower crime revolving around the drug epidemic. This issue is significant to criminal justice because it shows that the United States has a serious drug dilemma that started in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that has to be combated by government and law enforcement agencies. This includes the issue you of whether or not drug courts are actually helping reduce crime.
The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention and Protection Act (JJDPA) was established in 1974 and was the first federal law that dealt comprehensively with juvenile delinquency to improve the juvenile justice system and support state and local efforts at delinquency prevention. This paper will assess the JJDPA and summarize its purpose and implementation and enforcement. Next, there will be a discussion of the historical context of the policy; followed by a focus of the latent consequences. Finally there will be a vignette as to how this Act has affected a person or family as well as personal reflection toward the policy.
The first drug court was established in Miami-Dade, Florida in 1989. Drug courts were established because of the “revolving door of drug use” and increasing recidivism rates. Drug courts have the ability to change a person’s life for the better by teaching them how to beat their addictions while providing the proper treatments for each offender. As a result, of the ongoing development of drug courts it is unfair to expect the system to be indefectible. Still, there are many benefits in participating in the drug court system.
In 1989, officials in Miami-Dade County, Florida established the nation’s first drug court. This special court was designed to bring drug treatment more fully into the criminal justice system, treating offenders with a history of drug abuse for their addiction, while simultaneously ensuring supervision, and sanctions when needed, from the courts. The movement for an alternative court to sentence drug offenders emerged from the rapidly evolving reality that the nation’s decision to address drug abuse through law enforcement mechanisms would continue to pose significant challenges for the criminal court system. In 2004, 53% of persons in state prison were identified with a drug dependence or abuse problem, but only 15% were receiving professional
The purpose of this literature review is to prove that drug court programs are an effective alternative to incarceration for people struggling with substance abuse issues. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics seventeen percent of prisoners at the state level were incarcerated due to drug related crimes. Eighteen percent of federal cases were related to drugs (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). According to Lutze and Van Wormer the drug court model was formulated in response to the revolving cycle involved with substance addiction and crime.
The publication by Christina M. Gaudio is critical of the War on Drugs and focuses on its effects on juveniles. She takes time to outline the issues that are present with our current system, and specifically how the system is particularly unjust to juveniles. Gaudio details how the juvenile justice system operates state and federally, then she gives a brief history of the Drug War, the Drug Wars effect on Juveniles, its overall effectiveness, and possible solutions to what she sees as the problem. The Drug War is extremely costly to the taxpayer and is in many respects failing.
The initial thinking behind the creation of minimum mandatory sentences was created by congress to aim in the capture and imprisonment of high level drug traffickers, and deter others from entering into drug trafficking or using illegal substances, which would create a safer society. However, the nation prison has been expanded with low level street drug dealers, and the accessibility to illegal drugs is more obtainable then before the enactment of the mandatory sentencing act. In fact, the number of drug offenders in federal prisons has increased 21 times since 1980. Contrary to what congress has believed in the past about the dangers of crack cocaine compared to that in powder form has been proven to be untrue, but little has been done to reduce the number of prisons affected by that belief.
The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).
(1988). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law (3rd ed.). United States of America: West Publishing Company. Wright, W. &.
This leads to the question of whether the justice system is doing an adequate job of dealing with drug addiction. Instead of incarcerating people for drug abuse, an alternative is treating victims by rehab and treatment. This paper will exam why treatment is the superior option for