{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

DRUG COURTS un tabbed

DRUG COURTS un tabbed - AT drug courts bad Drug courts...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
AT drug courts bad Drug courts decrease recidivism, Dwight Vick writes, Dwight Vick, Ph.D. and Jennifer Lamb Keating. ARTICLE: COMMUNITY-BASED DRUG COURTS: EMPIRICAL SUCCESS. WILL SOUTH DAKOTA FOLLOW SUIT? Copyright (c) 2007 South Dakota Law Review South Dakota Law Review [Dr. Vick is currently an assistant professor of political science at University of South Dakota, Vermillion, S.D. A special thanks to Paul W. Tschetter for his assistance with formatting this article.] Focusing on recidivism rates, several studies have shown that drug court clients were significantly less likely than control subjects to not only be rearrested for a drug offense, but were also less likely to be rearrested for any type of offense. An analysis of official records collected over a two-year period confirmed that drug court reduced crime among the drug-addicted population. 122 A separate study of two drug courts over a thirty-month period revealed that graduates of drug court were much less likely to be arrested and had fewer arrests during this period compared to probationers and non-graduates. 123 This study suggested that rates of arrest during the thirty-month period declined in direct relationship to the duration of drug court [*302] involvement. 124 Furthermore, graduates of the program had lower rates of substance abuse. 125 In a different review completed by Roman, Townsend, and Bhati, 126 16.4% of a nationwide sample of seventeen thousand drug court graduates had been rearrested and charged with a felony offense within a year of program graduation. 127 Moreover, the average reconviction rate among 2,135 drug court clients was 29% lower over three years than the rate for non-drug court participants. Drug courts allow criminals to avoid a criminal record, therefore incentivizing participants to remain in the program. Marlowe writes, Copyright (c) 2002 Villanova University Villanova Law Review , 2002, 47 Vill. L. Rev. 989, 13977 words, SYMPOSIUM: NEW VOICES ON THE WAR ON DRUGS: EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR INTERVENING WITH DRUG ABUSING OFFENDERS, Douglas B. Marlowe* [MP/rwd) URL: http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document? _m=9a47ba13da236549c88696831c77ccdb&_docnum=2&wchp=dGLzVzz- zSkVk&_md5=3c26fa9e32d6097b26f5780a2707577c Drug courts provide offenders with a tangible opportunity to avoid a criminal record or a sentence of incarceration contingent upon completion of a prescribed regimen of substance abuse treatment, case management, urinalyses and judicial status hearings. Similarly, TC programs provide inmates with an opportunity for early parole contingent upon completion of in-prison and work release treatment components. This provides substantial incentives to offenders to satisfy the monitoring conditions of these programs and to receive adequate dosages of treatment. 143 Rather than simply punishing offenders for engaging in drug [*1018] use, these programs meaningfully reward offenders for engaging in desired behaviors such as completing treatment and demonstrating drug abstinence. 144 Graduation rates of drug court programs have been empirically high, Colker writes: Allison C. Colker, J.D., Esq.Senior Policy AnalystForum for State Health Policy Leadership National
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}