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.
Methodology: They conducted the research by implementing …show more content…
Due to the fact that drug courts are working to reduce crime, the policies and practices of the US government may have to be changed or strengthened in favor of drug courts. For example, in the Journal Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box (Goldkamp, White, Robinson, 2001), the authors say “Nevertheless, these findings also suggest that variation in drug court out comes may be explained by changes in the operation of the drug court and its ability to deliver the treatment and deterrent effects postulated by the collection of components inside the drug court black box”. This clearly shows that in order for drug courts to work and grow in numbers, changes in policies and procedures that are shown to reduce crime need to be implemented everywhere. Weaknesses that can be found in this summary are that all active drug courts in the US did not respond, which could lead to a very different outcome involving the effectiveness of drug courts as a
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
“Drug courts are specialized courts that deal only in substance use/abuse cases. As an alternative to traditional courts, drug courts arrange for treatment for drug offenders. Upon successful completion of the program, some courts then dismiss criminal charges against defendants entirely” (Robinson, 2013). When somebody is accused and charges of drug possession, they have drug courts to handle these cases. If a man experiences the general court system, they will have more sentencing time and the fines are bigger.
In 2014 there were 215,000 people incarcerated in federal prisons, almost half were there for drug-related offenses with the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses in the 1980s, increasing the population by more than 800 percent (Malcolm, 2014.) “Moreover, drug offenders make up the single largest category of incarcerated offenders in Tennessee, serving an average sentence of 9.7 years” (Malcolm, 2014, paragraph 21.) By limit sentencing, we can address the issues of high cost, by using probation and parole for more misdemeanor
There are two theories of drug court that not has been proven, but has led to further discussion on the topic. The participants in drug court are predominately Caucasians and African Americans. Drug court participants are made up of 62% Caucasians, 21% African American, 10% Hispanic or Latinos and 5% of other racial groups throughout the US. The first theory of drug court was based on research that drug court offenders are more likely to have positive results related to graduation and recidivism.
With the economy in the turmoil that it is in America cannot continue to support these sentencing guidelines. The Mandatory Article Sentencing declares that the laws are becoming a huge drain on the Justice Bureau’s budget, and in 2012 the United States had far beyond more people incarcerated than any other country. Most of these prisoners are low-level drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing guidelines with a cost draining on American taxpayers $6.8 billion a year, as of 2012. These costs do not seem to have a ceiling and continue eating up about twenty-five percent of the federal justice system’s yearly budget.
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.
While America holds 10% of the world's population, America also holds 25% of the world's jailed population. That number is baffling because one in every 4 people are jailed. This comes rise in jailing trickles down to the war on drugs in the early 70’s. In June of 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs”. He increased law enforcement agencies and mandatory sentences for people charged with drug related crimes.
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
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).
We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century. The war on drugs is a growing problem in America everyday. This war is becoming an unfortunate loss. Our courts, hospitals, and prisons are continuously being filled with drug abusers. Violent crime the ravages our neighborhood is a result of the drug trade.
Essentially, the war on drugs has demonstrated to be an exorbitant expense. The federal government in 2002 alone spent $18.822 billion in the form of expenditures such as treatment, prevention, and domestic law enforcement (CSDP, 2007, p. 54). However, given that the drug war has garnered meager results, this investment may be interpreted as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Alternatively, the money that has been allocated to arrest and detain drug offenders may also be a source of contention. CSDP (2007) “Of the 1,846,351 arrests for drug law violations in 2005, 81.7% (1,508,469) were for possession of a controlled substance.
The creation of drug courts has had many positive effects on millions of lives and has helped with keeping certain familiar faces out of court. Though due to are countries fiscal crisis many programs have been cut or expansion has ceased. The criminal justice systems cost roughly 70 billion annual on the corrections system which is because of over reliance on incarceration. Instead of spending so much to increate people the courts could be sending them to reform programs that end
In 1972, former President Richard Nixon made his infamous statements regarding crime and drug abuse. In this speech, he declared a war on crime and drugs and intended to decrease the number of people using drugs and the amount of crimes that were committed. Since this declaration, incarceration rates in the U.S. have gone up by 500%, even though the amount of crime happening has gone down. One of the reasons why I feel our rates have risen, is because sometimes, we put people in jail when they don’t need to be there in the first place.
Why we should incarcerate drug users Currently one of the less heated but still talked about debates is the issue of what we should do with those who have been caught using illegal substances. Some people say that we should be giving them rehab, and some say that they deserve to be in their. Both sides have their points, but the evidence points towards incarceration being a better option. The reason our judicial system incarcerates drug abusers are because enforcement will discourage drug use, it will keep them away from innocent people, and it will punish the addicts so they know not to do it again.
isn’t the only thing people believe needs to change; the reasons for arrests have been criticized by many. America incarcerates more citizens for drug related crimes than any other place in the world. Of the roughly 200,000 in federal prison, 52% are being held for drug crimes and only 8% are for violent crimes, such as: murder, assault, and robbery (Waldman, 2013). Many believe that the “War on Drugs” must become less aggressive because of its large contribution to the prison population. The distribution of prisoners by race has also raised concern among Americans.