NON VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS: PRISON IS NOT THE ANSWER

nCHAPTER THREE: RESULTS OF THE STUDY

nIncarcerations and Harsh punishments

nBased on the results of this study, incarcerations and harsh punishments of drug offenders are not effective and efficient methods of solving the problems of rising cases of criminal activities. The study findings established that incarcerations and harsh punishments do not solve the problem of overcrowding. Furthermore, these methods are ineffective because they do not reduce the rate of recidivism after a drug offender is released from prison. Incarcerations and harsh punishments do not respond to the needs of the drug addicts – who need to change their behaviors and attitudes (Hickert, et al, 2009). The findings of this study established that life in prison exposes the offenders to antisocial life that makes them unwilling to change their behaviors and attitudes towards criminality. The results also established that incarcerations and harsh punishments are expensive methods because they waste public funds.

nDrugs Courts and Rehabilitation Prevent Overcrowding

nBased on the findings of this study, rehabilitation and drug courts are the most effective methods of preventing overcrowding in prisons. For instance, the results noted that after the introduction of drug courts and rehabilitation programs in states such as New York, California and Michigan, these methods have played a crucial role in prevention of overcrowding (Miller, 2004). The findings of the study also revealed that drug courts provide an opportunity for the offenders to change their behaviors and reward those who comply with the protocol of treatment. On the contrary, the normal prison treatments do not offer a chance for inmates to change their behaviors (Deschenes, Ireland, & Kleinpeter, 2009). Unlike drug courts and rehabilitation, incarceration hardens the drug addicts hence they do not find the need to change their behaviors.

nThe results of this research indicated that rehabilitation and drug courts are effective in reducing overcrowding in prison because the offenders are responsible for their mistakes. In this respect, they pay the cost for their rehabilitation and drug courts. Unlike prison, this method does not pass the cost of criminal justice to the taxpayers (McIvor, 2009). Therefore, drug courts increases the spaces in prisons as offenders addicted to the use of drugs are not sent to prison, which ultimately reduces overcrowding.

nEfficiency and Effectiveness of Drug Courts and Rehabilitation

nRecidivism

nAccording to the findings of this research, drug courts and rehabilitation are effective strategies to reduce recidivism as compared to other methods. Drug addicts who completed the rehabilitation and drug courts had a less chance of being re-arrested at 29 percent as compared to 48 percent of offenders who completed normal criminal systems. Moreover, drug offenders who were released from drug courts after first and second year of graduation had a less rate of recidivism. Most notably, offenders who never joined the drug courts and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system had recorded a re-arrest rate of more than 41 percent. Therefore, these methods promote compliance among the offenders with substance addiction.

nCost of Prison Operations

nAccording to the findings of this study, drug courts and rehabilitation are cost-effective because they lower the imprisonment costs. In this regard, every year the methods save not less than $7 000 per offender. Fortunately, they save the taxpayers money that can be diverted to other important matters of national development. For instance, the results revealed that these methods saves three USD for every dollar invested (Miller, 2009). Rehabilitation and drug courts saved significant cost associated with drug tests, jail time and courtrooms (McIvor, 2009). Furthermore, they were effective in preventing lost workdays, medical costs and victimization costs.

nAnalysis of other Studies

nCavanaugh, (2010) in his study investigated how drug courts and rehabilitation led to a reduction in recidivism. The study involved twenty research participants in drug courts who were previously engaged in substance offences. In addition, the researcher involved 20 inmates who served in normal criminal justice systems – acted as control groups (Cavanaugh, 2010). Consequently, the researcher compared the results of the two groups. In terms of recidivism, rehabilitation and drug courts reduced the rate of re-arrest among the inmates who had completed these systems. However, inmates who had completed the imprisonment had a higher rate of re-arrest. The Cavanaughs study had a similar hypothesis with this study, which was effectiveness and efficiency in reducing recidivism and cost (Cavanaugh, 2010). The research also noted that rehabilitation reduced the cost of imprisonment as the inmates were supposed to pay for the program.

nWilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, (2006) conducted a study on the effects of drug courts on recidivism. The hypotheses of the study were to determine whether they reduced recidivisms, overcrowding in prison and cost of imprisonment. The research involved the use of systematic reviews of criminology evidences (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). Essentially, the researchers are against the use of harsher punishments and incarceration for drug addicts because they did not produce deterrence. Furthermore, the researchers were in consensus that drug courts and rehabilitation reduced overcrowding in prison and cost of operating these institutions (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). The study also points out that the states government should adopt these methods for the best results.

nA research by Marlowe, Festinger, Arabia, Dugosh, Benasutti, Croft, & McKay, (2008) used a pilot experiment to investigate the effectiveness of drug courts in changing the attitudes and behaviors of drug addicts. The research used one of the drug courts as a pilot experiment. Marlowe et al, (2008) noted that harsher punishments and incarcerations are not effective in behavior change of the offender (Marlowe et al, 2008). Instead, they promoted negative attitude, which makes it difficult to reduce the rate of criminality in the United States. Marlowe et al (2008) used hypothesis similar to this study. Therefore, most of the results are consistent with Marlowe et al (2008) study (Marlowe et al, 2008).

nSummary of the Findings

nBased on the results of these studies, it is evident that rehabilitation and drug courts are more effective and efficient in reducing criminal behaviors and attitudes among drug addicts. Therefore, those offenders who completed the rehabilitation and drug court programs are more likely to become useful members of the society. They also help a person to achieve much without the influence of drugs (Marlowe et al, 2008). Furthermore, they are able to gain skills and knowledge on how to stay sober and abide by the laws.

nThe strategies are effective and efficient in accounting for the taxpayers money. The cost of the rehabilitation is catered for by the offender hence they do not utilize public funds. Therefore, more resources are diverted to provision of essential services (Hickert, et al, 2009). Most importantly, all the studies indicated that these strategies are effective in reduction of rates of re-arrests after release from prison. Therefore, there are many benefits associated with the use of rehabilitation and drug courts. States government should consider introduction of these methods in the criminal justice systems (Birgden & Grant, 2010). In this respect, the study results suggested that drug addicts who engage in different criminal activities, needs a supportive environment that enables them to reduce the need for drug abuses.

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.