Drug Courts and Recidivism

Drug Courts and Recidivism

Introduction

Drug court is one of the best-kept secrets of the Illinois criminal justice system. Usually conducted as a special program within standard criminal courts, drug court is designed to provide drug-addicted defendants with successful drug treatment as an alternative to confinement. The precise requirements vary by jurisdiction, but generally drug court participants must stay alcohol and drug free (which may be confirmed through random testing), complete a drug treatment program, and be either employed or attending school (Rempel, 2002, 12). Defends who live up to drug court requirements may have the charges against them dropped or have their sentences reduced or eliminated.

Drug courts are emerging as a national phenomenon in the judicial system. Since the introduction of the first drug court in 1989, the use therapeutic court model became so dominant that he could now ubiquitous within the U.S. criminal justice system. It is believed that drug courts are therapeutic because they put emphasis on substance abuse treatment interventions rather than criminal courts are more traditional. In 2004, the total number of programs drug courts in operation in the United States came to 1,621, while that the total number of courts for the resolution of conflicts in general was of 2,557. It is attributed to the courts drug reduction of recidivism, retention of patients in treatment and improved outcomes in terms of offenders who abuse substances (Marlowe, 2004, 1).

There are a number of drug courts across the country, but they are far from mandatory on a state or federal level. Anecdotal evidence as well as statistics has piled up highlighting their success yet many cities and counties are slow to implement drug courts locally. Many hope that federal and state governments will take on the task of requiring access to drug courts in every state; celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Matthew Perry have even lobbied Congress to increase the availability of drug courts to those who end up in front of the court charged with nonviolent, drug-related crimes (Marlowe, 2003, 141). Yet many are still slow to move forward in creating more drug courts so that all drug-related offenders may get the help they need rather than a punishment that does nothing but delay the next time they will stand in front of a judge.

Drug courts have been proven to reduce the recidivism rate, or the return of repeat offenders. If an addict commits a drug-related charge to support their addiction and then gets the help they need to heal from addiction, they often don't end up committing more crimes. This saves the state, local and federal governments a great deal of money in treatment, health care, law enforcement, court time and more. Shirley Bond is the British Columbia Attorney General. She says that drug court is “about collaborative solutions, not revolving doors (Listwan, 2003, 389).”

Discussion

Through a series of increasing research, it is clear that drug courts are an effective alternative to traditional methods, "routine". However, drug courts have had great reviews in ...