The Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program is another attempt to provide better treatment for people who are convicted. The study showed that drug offenders who underwent a treatment program outside of prison had a 26 percent less rate of re-arrest after two years than a control group that was sent to prison (Justice Policy Institute, 2010). Rehabilitative programs like the Second Chance Act and the Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program has shown to growth and positive
The government and administrators of prisons and treatment centers are trying to lower the cost of incarceration and treatment centers. Treatment centers are the more expensive option but it last longer and has more permanent effects in low level drug criminals. The family and individual want the easiest option that helps them or their children to treat their addiction. They want to use treatment centers to treat the addiction to prevent them crime again. The effectiveness of prisons and treatment centers vary.
The idea behind these program was to help treat the offenders for their substance abuse disorders while still holding them accountable for the crime that they had committed (Lutze & Wormer, 2013). Many studies have been conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of drug court programs across the country. In a qualitative study done by Gallagher 100 participants of the drug court program were examined. This study found that of the drug court participants, seventy-nine percent were not rearrested in the follow-up period. Twenty-one percent of those participants were rearrested (Gallagher, 2014).
Beginning research looked at how many times an individual was arrested after completing the program, how much time passed before being arrested, and how much jail time an individual previously had as indicators of reoffending (Burns et al., 2013). Belenko (2001) is often credited as the pioneer for critically analyzing drug courts’ efficacy in which the author found that drug courts reduce recidivism and save money. However, DeMatteo et al. (2013) claims that because there are so many variations between specialty courts, obtaining accurate data is difficult. Inaccurate measures led Palermo (2010) to research how the amount of arrests prior to entering the specialty court program and the number of arrests after exiting program determined the
Determining this, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has also developed a comprehensive drug abuse treatment strategy for those incarcerated inmates who were affected by illegal drug activities. Drug education programs, and comprehensive drug abuse counseling is offered to nearly all incarcerated inmates. While the number directly related illegal drug activity to inmate incarceration may be approximately fifty-one percent, some form of illegal drug activity may eventually affect nearly all
this study used evidence from 23 drug courts and 6 comparison sites. With the hypothesis “that drug court participants have lower rates of drug use and criminal activity and show improved functioning compared to similar offenders not offered drug court,” the study will offer information on whether or not the drug courts are working enough to be widely used. To see whether the drug courts were performing or not, 7 outcomes measured drug use, criminal activity, incarceration, socioeconomic status, mental health, family support, and homelessness (Rossman, 2011, p.20). Information found through the study points to reduced drug relapse, reduced criminal behavior, and increased court appearance (Rossman, 2011, p. 3-4). Overall, through the MADCE study, results proved that those who go through Drug Courts have less chance of relapse, commit less crime, and Drug Courts even “return a net benefit of $5,680 to $6,208 per participant” (Rossman, 2011, p. 257-258).
Similarly, other possible drug-related crimes, such as theft, burglary and robbery, are all extremely serious offences which carry severe penalties. However, the imposition of punitive penalties fails to adequately respond to drug-related crime. This is because punitive measures fail to address the complex nature and causes underlying the commission of drug-related offences. It has been found that after release from prison, without accessible, integrated and consistent drug treatment and support such as access to housing and employment, people with substance use issues are at higher risk of re-offending and returning to prison, or dying from a drug overdose.
Within the jail and prison system there are many types of offenders living together. Some of these offenders require special attention and programs while incarcerated. These special requirements can be based on a mental or physical health issue, age, or type of offense; such as sex offenses or particularly violent offenses. For the purposes of this paper the focus will be on the special requirements of drug offenders, and more specifically drug abusers. On the surface it may not seem like these offenders need any special considerations while incarcerated.
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
Drug courts, initially propelled in Florida in 1989, are an arrangement of escalated treatment and supervision. The thought is to treat the instances of peaceful substance-mishandling guilty parties uniquely in contrast to other criminal cases in light of the fact that the dependence is at the base of the criminal action. Accentuation is on recovery instead of discipline. Drug Courts are the best equity intercession for treating drug-dependent individuals the purpose of drug courts is to diminish drug use, lessen wrongdoing, spare cash, and it reestablish lives with sparing more hardship on the kids and reconnecting families together. Drug Courts serve a small amount of the assessed 1.2 million drug dependent individuals presently included in the equity framework.
Only 18.3% (337,882) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug” (p. 23). Therefore, the individuals who are likely to enter the already overcrowded prisons may be users and the actual not distributors themselves. Thus, prison space that is intended to be reserved for murders and sexual predators is instead being occupied by substance
In 2000, U.S. agencies surpassed the $100-billion-a-day barrier in spending to incarcerate individuals with serious addiction problems. Rehabilitating and managing offenders who misuse alcohol has proven to be extraordinarily difficult. Despite traditional sanctions and ever-increasing terms of incarceration, addiction drives many of these offenders to continue committing crimes, resulting in a revolving door. Alcohol- and drug-involved offenders are overwhelming the criminal justice system, creating unwieldy court dockets, burdensome caseloads, and overcrowded jails and prisons. Yet, programs and sanctions have had little impact on the rate of alcohol-involved crime.
(Wormer, Persson, 2010). This program would save the communities a lot of money and help out the families of the person who is in trouble. Not all people who commit drug related crimes would qualify but people who would be facing long prison time. This would be for first time offenders who have not committed violent crimes. They would get treatments such as cognitive behavior therapy, drug treatments and be under the very intense supervision of the drug court.
Many drug offenders are often forced into the drug business because of economic reasons, resulting from the increased difficulty of finding jobs after prison, due to the felony that is attached to their name. Employers are often discouraged from hiring a person that has committed a felony, because of the uncertainty in their behavior. A study done by the Urban Institute, found that only 45% of all Americans that had been to prison, had a job within a year of being released. It was even lower for drug offenders, as only 25% of all drug offenders in the United States were able to find a job once released (McVay). It’s hard enough finding a well paying job because of the current state of the economy in the United States.
Changing criminal behavior, not pausing it while incarcerated is what is needed to keep the public safe, making offenders aware of the destruction they have caused to society, and making them accountable via treatment programs and discipline. Unfortunately, upon release an offender may have set backs, being in a structured, disciplined environment, followed by complete freedom may prove bad for some. Many halfway houses are located far away from an offender’s residence, therefore even if employment is secured during treatment when released they return home to no job, or support, and are put back in the same situation. Community support is imperative in the effectiveness of halfway houses, sadly, many communities refuse halfway houses in their communities, lack of education and fear have been a huge