NON VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS: PRISON IS NOT THE ANSWER

nCHAPTER THREE: DISCUSSION OF THE STUDY

nIncarcerations and Harsh punishments

nDrug courts and rehabilitation have proved to be crucial methods of preventing crime among the drug offenders. They provide interventions to manage abuse of drugs through access to and engagement in, suitable rehabilitative and treatment services. Drug courts and rehabilitation are designed to address the problem of drug addiction and arrests associated with drug offenders to ensure drug treatment and intensive judicial monitoring. They are collaborative approaches that aim to execute court order compliance. In addition, these strategies attempt to motivate drug offenders as compared to punishing them as it engages the offenders constructively towards rehabilitation (Saum & Hiller, 2008). Based on the observations of the study, incarcerations and harsh punishments do not create deterrence of non-violent drug offenders. In fact, they generate negative effects to the drug offenders as they become psychologically disturbed. Moreover, the study established that these methods are ineffective in reducing the rate of recidivism following release from prison (Hickert, et al, 2009). Drug offenders requires support in order to enable them change their attitudes and behaviors. Incarceration and harsh punishments exposes offenders to antisocial life that makes them unwilling to change their behaviors (Saum & Hiller, 2008).

nDrug courts and Rehabilitation Prevent Overcrowding

nThe research noted that rehabilitation and drug courts are effective in prevention of overcrowding in prisons. Several states have recorded decrease in overcrowding in their prison following the introduction of these methods. As compared to normal prison, drug courts and rehabilitation provides a perfect opportunity to reward the inmates who comply with the protocols (Miller, 2004). Rehabilitation and drug courts are important methods of reducing overcrowding because the offenders are responsible for their own mistakes. Based on the findings of this study, drug courts and rehabilitation ensure that the offender pays for these services (McIvor, 2009). Therefore, it does not pass the cost burden to the taxpayers. In this respect, most of the offenders are not sent to prison hence facilitating reduction of overcrowding (Deschenes, Ireland, & Kleinpeter, 2009).

nEffectiveness and efficiency of drug courts and rehabilitation

nThe results of this study established that the use of drug courts and rehabilitation is an effective and efficient method of reducing recidivism among drug offenders relative to other methods. Therefore, drug courts and rehabilitation of drug offender play a crucial role in reducing the rate of re-arrest (McIvor, 2009). As compared to normal system of criminal justice, offenders who completed this program had less rate of re-arrest after release from prison at 29 percent (Miller, 2009). However, drug offender who failed to utilize rehabilitation and drug courts had a higher rate of recidivism at 41 percent (Hickert, Boyle & Tollefson, 2009).

nCost of the prison operations

nDrug courts and rehabilitation are cost effective strategies in lowering the cost of imprisonments. In this regard, they help to save the taxpayers money that can be utilized in provision of other crucial services (Cavanaugh, 2010). For instance, based on the findings of this study, it was noted that these methods saves approximately $7000 per year per drug offender. Furthermore, rehabilitation and drug courts saves costs associated with victimization costs, medical costs and lost workdays (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006).

nConclusion

nBased on the findings of this study, it can be concluded that drug courts and rehabilitation play a key role in reduction of criminal attitudes and behaviors among the drug offenders as compared to harsh punishments and incarcerations. In this regard, it assists to development of the individual and becoming useful persons in the community. In addition, they are able to learn on how to control triggers that lead to use of drugs (Marlowe, et al, 2008).

nMoreover, drug courts and rehabilitation are crucial methods that help to save the taxpayers money. In this respect, the money can be utilized to provide important services and advancement of economy. The offenders are responsible for the cost of rehabilitation, which makes them more liable for their mistakes (Birgden & Grant, 2010). Furthermore, these methods are efficient and effective in reducing the rates of re-arrest of drug offenders after release from prison.

nIn addition, rehabilitation and drug courts help to reduce overcrowding in prison. Therefore, they help to solve the problem of overcrowding in prison that has become a major concern in the recent past. In summary, drug courts and rehabilitation helps to minimize the rate of re-offending, makes individual accountable for the program and reduces crimes related to drugs (Miller, 2004). They provide the offenders a chance to address their drug abuse problems and offer them skills to address issues through support and counseling.

nRecommendation

nBased on these benefits, the state government in this country should set up many programs related to drug courts and rehabilitation. Similarly, states that have not introduced the drug courts and rehabilitation should put these methods as the first priority (Saum & Hiller, 2008). Moreover, the state government should develop policies that facilitate implementation of drug courts and rehabilitation programs. Furthermore, these programs only serve a fraction of the more than 1 million persons addicted with substance use in the justice system. In order to terminate the drug cycle and rising cases of criminal activities in the country, the government should establish Drug Courts that are accessible for every citizen (Miller, 2004).

nIn addition, the government should avoid using harsh punishments and incarcerations for drug offenders. In such cases, harsher punishment does not change criminal behaviors. Indeed, offenders do not understand the reason to change their lives in drug use. The government should give a chance to the drug offenders to be accountable for their rehabilitate cost hence does not pass the burden to the taxpayers (Saum & Hiller, 2008).

nLimitations of the study

nJust like in any other research, several constraints were faced during the process of this study. The secondary data used could be sources of bias. The researchers in these data could be biased in compilation and presentation of a more optimistic or pessimistic type of data. In addition, study participants in these studies could not have provided accurate results. However, the researcher in this study used sources that presented accurate results. In addition, the researcher used studies that were consistent with the most recent surveys (Saum & Hiller, 2008).

nSuggestions for future research

nThe study recommends future research to investigate further the topic using interviews of criminal justice system stakeholders only to confirm the findings of this research, which would use primary data. Further qualitative studies also require to be conducted to investigate other variables that are associated with drug courts and rehabilitation of drug offenders. More research might also be undertaken to investigate how different types of drug courts influence effectiveness of reducing recidivism, overcrowding and cost of imprisonments.

n

nReferences

nBirgden, A., & Grant, L. (2010). Establishing a compulsory drug treatment prison: Therapeutic policy, principles, and practices in addressing offender rights and rehabilitation. International journal of law and psychiatry, 33(5), 341-349.

nCavanaugh, J. M. (2010). Helping those who serve: Veterans treatment courts foster rehabilitation and reduce recidivism for offending combat veterans. New Eng. L. Rev., 45, 463.

nDeschenes∗, E. P., Ireland, C., & Kleinpeter, C. B. (2009). Enhancing drug court success. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(1), 19-36.

nHickert, A. O., Boyle, S. W., & Tollefson, D. R. (2009). Factors that predict drug court completion and drop out: Findings from an evaluation of Salt Lake County’s adult felony drug court. Journal of Social Service Research, 35(2), 149-162.

nMarlowe, D. B., Festinger, D. S., Arabia, P. L., Dugosh, K. L., Benasutti, K. M., Croft, J. R., & McKay, J. R. (2008). Adaptive Interventions in Drug Court A Pilot Experiment. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 343-360.

nMcIvor, G. (2009). Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish Drug Courts. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9(1), 29-49.

nMiller, E. J. (2004). Embracing addiction: Drug courts and the false promise of judicial interventionism. Ohio St. LJ, 65, 1479.

nMiller, E. J. (2009). Drugs, Courts, and the New Penology. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 20(2).

nSaum, C. A., & Hiller, M. L. (2008). Should violent offenders be excluded from drug court participation? An examination of the recidivism of violent and nonviolent drug court participants. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 291-307.

nWilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 459-487.