Drug courts as an alternative to probation for highly recidivistic drug offenders.

Abstract

As mental hospital populations declined following the deinstitutionalization of the 1980s and the quasi-failure of community mental health hospitals, partially due to patients’ non-compliance with hospital regimes, jails and prisons were almost inundated with a new breed of patients—those addicted to drugs. Because of their use of drugs, primarily illicit in nature, in concomitance with their emotional problems, these individuals frequently behaved in an antisocial manner. Thus, their incarceration was a frequent response to a deeper problem (Palermo, 2010). In 1979, in addition to the more commonly used marijuana, a high of 25 million people ages 12 and older reported having used major drugs such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), cocaine, and methamphetamine (ONDCP, 1997). In 2010, a similar number—22.6 million people in the same age range—reported the use of the above drugs (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011). In 2008, statistics showed that 255,700 inmates out of 1,296,700 were charged with misbehaviors due to drug use (Guerino, Harrison, & Sabol, 2011). These high numbers of incarcerated drug users were one of the contributing factors to the creation of specialty drug courts. These specialty courts, as with other specialty courts (e.g., mental health courts) were facilitated by the new philosophical approach to crime of therapeutic jurisprudence (Palermo, 2013). This approach views offenders without prejudice or antagonism and helps them to overcome those addictions that may be due to basic emotional problems. By the beginning of the 21st century, the scientific community had concluded from various meta-analyses, showing fewer re-arrests for new offenses and technical violations, that drug courts are effective in reducing criminal recidivism (Marlowe, 2010). Drugs courts grew exponentially. By 2010, in America, there were 2,500 drug courts throughout the states. These programs, flexible and more offender-oriented, were reported to be successful through their use of counselling, education, drug treatment and rehabilitation, and problem solving, which were combined with the use of less punishment.