Drug Courts Essay Example

Introduction

Drug courts can be understood as the courts which are set up for non-violent lawbreakers who are charged with drug abuse problem. Thus, the social policy on drug courts ensures that the offenders are given integrated support and services which encompasses of drug abuse treatment, drug testing, parole, and compulsory drug testing as well as supervised release. Notably, drug courts are established with the motive of decreasing housing nonviolent convicts with violent prisoners by carrying out its roles on a non-adversarial (Norman et al., 18). In that, they work by employing dual paradigms of discipline and healing through social work resources, treatment, judicial sanctions, case management for healing, and criminal justice intrusions with the objective of initiating change which will bring sobriety and end the criminal behaviour.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The primary objective of social policy on drug courts is to lower the substance abuse and other criminal behaviours linked with drug abuse. This is achieved by engaging and holding drug abuse offenders in treatment services and programs; bring together expertise who will adjudicate the issue of drug cases in one confined place; to release judicial prosecutorial and public justification resources for addressing other matters that are not related to drug; and lastly, to solve other offender's problems by performing clinical valuation and effective case management (Gallagher 18). It is also essential to note that there are two forms of drug courts. They involve a post-adjudication and pre-adjudication drug court. Post-adjudication drug court is tasked with the responsibility of allowing the offender who has completed the rehabilitation program to serve their jail term when they are drug-free. On the other hand, pre-adjudication drug court helps the substance abuse victims who have completed the programme successfully to free them from their criminal charges and protect them from the incarceration for their offenses.

The Major Arguments for Using Drug Courts

The first primary argument for using such social policy compared to incarceration is that they are cost friendly. This implies that a lot of resources are used to incarcerate one drug offender despite if they are being jailed for a nonviolent drug crime. Nonetheless, it saves the taxpayers money due to the reduced victimization and decreased health expenses hence increasing the government funds that can be used in other sectors. Drug courts social policy typically less expensive than the incarceration of an inmate thus, making the drug courts more effective even in countries that are faced with financial constraints.

Drug courts minimize substance abuse. One of the significant advantages of this social policy is that it inhibits drug use among the victims. This is achieved by offering an extensive and scrupulous treatment program which mainly lowers the levels of drug abuse of the victims. A majority of drug courts ensures that the defendants are tested weekly and determines the drug use plummets once a subject is enrolled in the drug court programs (Messer 11). As a consequence, through the monitoring, supervision and drug tests, a majority of graduates can end their drug addiction habit in the long run.

Drug courts enhance compliance. The essential feature of every drug court I accountability. By providing broad treatment and managing the drug abuse victims, the drug courts inhibit a majority of criminals from leaving the treatment program early (Tiger 171). Thus, due to close supervision and extensive treatments offered, the participants are more likely to stick with the plan until they manage to fight their addiction to drugs so that they can be freed.

The Major Arguments against Using Drug Courts

Loss of rights. It is evident that drug courts necessitate a guilty plea for admission. In line with this notion, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in many instances, prosecutors demands respondents to waive their rights so that they can have a speedy hearing. Thus, the defense advocates are not provided with sufficient time to collect and examine evidence, and they are not able to advise their clients accordingly (Koetzle & Shelley n.p). The argument against drug courts is primarily based on the likelihood of an offender to plead guilty without being aware of the consequences or other options that may be available, and maybe the subject is innocent of all the charges against him or her.

The variance of rules. One of the undesirable implication of drug courts is the lack of uniformity or evenness in their operations and regulations in the same country and some instances within the same jurisdiction. For example, Advocates representing the accused in drug courts in particular country or jurisdiction may realize that a defendant is allowed to enter the courtroom while a client with the same convictions in a different state is not eligible.

Lastly, drug courts programs may not be useful to some individuals who believe in strong punishments for the criminals. This is because drug courts social policy is belied to provide help to persons when in the real sense they are supposed to punish for breaking the law. Therefore, they feel that this is unjust or wrong since the equivalent help may not be available to other lawbreakers.

Recommendations

I believe that every state should adopt the social policy on drug courts because the main aim of the program is to save the lives of drug addicts so that they can live in a drug-free environment. Making use of drug courts is the most effective approach of addressing the issue of drug abuse which is a predominant issue which is present in our society. Jailing drug users without giving them proper treatment to avoid drug abuse are a waste of time because when they are released, they relapse and continue using drugs since a majority are not aware of the damage they are causing to themselves. Nonetheless, drug courts provide alternative incarceration hence playing a key role in reducing prison overcrowding, recidivism, and criminality. I firmly believe that keeping individuals from being jailed for crimes linked to substance abuse minimizes their exposure to criminal networks.

Some of the changes that need to be adopted are the aspect of targeting persons who are at high risk of reoffending. This will help in increasing the effectiveness of reducing recidivism as opposed to targeting low-risk persons (Norman et al., 20). Drug courts will also enhance individual, and public safety since the persons who are most likely to commit additional crimes will be provided with intensive treatment and appropriate legal supervision. Nevertheless, drug courts should embrace procedures or policies that can be effectively implemented, for instance, relapse deterrence and therapy as well as altering the way the lawbreakers perceive the world also termed as cognitive behavioral treatment. In that, they should strive to avoid or reduce depending so much on practices that are seen to have negative or neutral effects for substance abuse offenders, for example, the self-esteem programs. Therefore, all states should embrace drug court programs to decrease crime, cut costs and most importantly save lives.

Works Cited

Gallagher, John R. "Predicting Criminal Recidivism Following Drug Court: Implications for Drug Court Practice and Policy Advocacy." Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, vol. 35, no. 1, Apr. 2014, pp. 15-29.

Koetzle, Deborah, and Shelley Johnson Listwan. Drug Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2018.

Messer, Sarah, et al. "Drug Courts and the Facilitation of Turning Points." Contemporary Drug Problems, vol. 43, no. 1, Mar. 2016, pp. 6-24.

Norman, Seth W., et al. "Drug Court Success." Tennessee Bar Journal, vol. 51, no. 3, Mar. 2015, pp. 16-22.

Tiger, Rebecca. "Drug Courts and the Logic of Coerced Treatment." Sociological Forum, vol. 26, no. 1, Mar. 2011, pp. 169-182.