Problem-Solving Courts are Helping to Reform the Justice System

The purpose of this study was to show that an effective drug treatment program in the criminal justice system is a necessity and to show that treatment will reduce recidivism thus reducing crime in society as a whole.

As soon as I entered the class, there was a man sitting in our class. His name was Paul Shapiro, and he was from the Orange County Courts. He explained to us what the community court is, and what kind of effect it has on our society. During mid-1980s, crack cocaine was widespread and people kept going back to prison. To cut this infinite loop of incarceration, Orange County made the drug court. It is not like a real court, but rather similar to a program that helps drug addicts free themselves from drug dependence. Unlike other courts, the prosecutor, the attorney, the probation officer, and the judge in the drug court work as a team.

Not only do the eligibility requirements of drug courts vary across the board, but the way the programs operate and their outcomes vary considerably, especially when it comes down to how they choose to operationalize the ten key components (Carey & Waller, 2011; Mackin et. al, 2009). In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals published these key components. The first key component is that drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing (NADCP, 1997). Being that the mission of drug courts is to combat the abuse of drugs and alcohol it is imperative for them to promote recovery through coordinated responses. The second key component states that drug courts should use a

In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).

I believe that drug court is the best option for people trying to recover from using drugs. The drug court provides a safe place for people who is trying to recover. Drug courts are there to keep the people away from drugs and the people that do them still so they can get their life put together again. People are in for a minimum of 18 months for people who have felony convictions, but it takes atlas 22 to 25 months to finish the program.

In 1994, Los Angeles County established its first Drug Court Program; within a few months, a second court was implemented. These two programs were the beginning of the Los Angeles County Drug Court system and represented a growing “movement to significantly alter the criminal justice system’s response to drug addiction and crime” (Fielding et al., 2002, p. 218). As of 2015, there are 12 adult drug courts in Los Angeles County that specialize in drug treatment services for drug involved and dependent offenders. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (1997) the mission of “drug courts is to stop the abuse of alcohol and other drugs and related criminal activity” (p. 7). Drug courts utilize a team approach to promote

The United States Criminal Justice System has been what most citizens ask for a reform, but we’ve seen little to no change through the years. Currently, our country has less than 5 percent of the world’s population but almost 25 percent of the total prison population, meaning that we have the highest incarceration rates in the world and it’s been increasing through the past years. The United States of America in 1974 had 100 out of every 100,000 people incarcerated; today, roughly 700 out of the 100,000 people are prison (Madden, 2015, p,14). Mass incarceration has been one of the biggest problems in our Criminal Justice System and one of the biggest issues to be solved. American citizens have has several

In 1989, the first drug court came into existence in Miami-Dade County, Florida. They emerged in response to demands for change in the criminal justice system because of the War on Drug. (Listwan, Sundt, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2003) By 2007, drug courts were established in all 50 states. Statistics show that the prison population of women increased because of the War on drug policies. (Shaffer, Hartman, & Listwan, 2009) The drug court model became an alternative to sanctions given to drug offenders. Drug courts address addiction by merging treatment services, judicial monitoring, and probation supervision. (King & Pasquarella, 2009; NADCP, 2005; Shaffer, Hartman, & Listwan, 2009)

Between 1990 and 1999, individuals who were convicted of a drug crime rose past 100,000, which accounted for 20 percent of our nation’s increased prison population (Lurigio, 2008). Between 1995 and 2003, the number of drug-related offenders constituted the largest increase of criminals in our nation’s prison population (Lurigio, 2008). In 2004, approximately 50 percent of state prisoners were known to be substance abusers or have drug dependency (King & Pasquarella, 2009). During these years, drug offenders were crowding dockets, prisons, and nearly the entire criminal justice system (Lurigio, 2008). Due to the expensive cost of handling such cases and the difficulty of changing the habits of drug abusers, community based programs were introduced to slow the drastic increase of drug-related incarcerations (Lurigio, 2008). According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans owed nearly 32 billion dollars toward criminal justice expenses, 31 billion dollars toward lost productivity, and three billion towards property damage in 1998 (King & Pasquarella, 2009). These chain of events built the foundation for Drug Treatment Courts (DTC) here in the United States. The origin of the first-ever drug court was located in the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida in 1989 (King & Pasquarella, 2009). DTC programs maintain

Drug courts were developed in response to a perceived need within society and the criminal justice system. This study collected data from 600 participants who successfully completed drug treatment court. The Drug Court Graduate Survey was developed by the court’s treatment program staff to serve as a measure of motivation for successful completion of the program as well as an evaluation of program functioning. The survey asked a variety of questions related to the clients experience in drug court and the client’s suggestions about way the court could change to improve effectiveness. Clients in this drug court provided interesting clues as to why drug addicted individuals enter drug court and what factors helped them successfully graduate.

The objective of drug courts is to impede the neglect of illegal drugs and alcohol related criminal wrongdoing. Additionally, drug courts encourage reclamation using a corresponding reaction to criminal violators reliant on alcohol and other illicit drugs. More importantly, apprehension of these objectives necessitates a group method, together with teamwork and support of the prosecutors, judges, probation officers, defense attorneys, and other correctional facilities staff, law enforcement agencies, treatment facilities and halfway houses, and public neighborhoods. Federal and State programs assessing alcohol and drug issues, vocational rehabilitation, housing, and education also have significant responsibilities in the rehabilitation of drug

As a judge over a drug court program who has a drug user appearing before me for the fourth time, I must take certain thoughts into consideration. Drug courts are designed for non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems who require integrated sanctions and services, including (a) mandatory periodic testing for the use of controlled substances; (b) substance abuse treatment; (c) diversion, probation, or other supervised release; and (d) aftercare services such as relapse prevention, health care, education, vocational training, job placement, housing placement, and child care (Siegel & Bartolla, 2011). Additionally, knowing that approximately 80 percent of offenders in the United States were under the influence of drugs and or alcohol

Shifting away from a punitive criminal justice system, problem-solving courts have been criticized as being “soft” on crime. Offenders follow a personalized treatment plan instead of being sentenced to jail. This alternative allows the courts to address the underlying issues faced by offenders. Many argue by having courts address these underlying issues, it grants offenders an easy out after committing crimes. However, this criticism is unfounded. Problem-solving courts are not “soft” on crime. This innovation in courts has generated positive results such as lower rates of recidivism, a decrease in low-level crimes, improved street conditions, a raise in accountability, and stronger family relationships (Kaye, 2004).

The biggest problem facing law enforcement today may be the very structure of the juvenile justice system. A system that neither punishes nor rehabilitates is useless. Examples of juvenile justice system failures are found everywhere throughout the United States.

In my first couple days attending criminal court, 9/12/17 and 9/17/17, I learned that the criminal justice system (at least in my town) is not out to get everybody. They really don’t want people in prison if they don’t have to put them in prison. I find myself spending a significant amount of time in judges chambers and in the courtroom alike and I’ve observed the difference in speech when they are in chambers vs. when they are on the court floor. I was expecting the attorneys to really be at each other's necks through the process but many of them, if not all of them, get along quite well. Also, bringing attention to the way that they speak, when they are in chambers for criminal court, they were talking about the person, not just the crime. Did they have a job, an education, any kids or family, and their past criminal history? They asked each other these questions before sentencing, and I found myself to be very fond of this. If you had a job and were attending school and got caught with a petty crime such as theft or possession of a substance, they might just send you to rehab or give you a mild probation sentence. They really aren’t out to get you it seems like. Even with individuals with substance abuse problems, instead of sending them to prison, judge will just sentence them to a rehab center. It appears that they want to help you. One of the D.A.’s even stated at one point, that he would rather see the kid at hand get his act together, than be sent to prison. Prison isn’t for everyone, and really what's the point. I talked with the judge one on one, and he stated that you really need to take into consideration of the circumstances before you come to a conclusion. Prison isn't going to help a lot of