Using juvenile drug court as an alternative to incarceration to decrease the rapidly increasing number of young offenders is a policy that includes various key concepts that one must understand. To start, juvenile drug courts are mostly voluntary. While some juvenile drug courts are mandated, this aspect has not motivated a vast majority of these courts to follow suit. Therefore, these programs are designed to keep youth from using any type of substance. These juveniles are obviously involved in this type of program due to their substance use/abuse issues.
After conducting some research I have reached the conclusion that drug offenders are the population in which could be more successfully controlled and rehabilitated in less secure correctional alternatives. There are a couple different beneficial aspects to transferring drug offenders out of prisons and into programs. The first is that is saves money while also being more effective. When you place an inmate into a program that is designed to help them with their specific problem your results improve. The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment’s final report on NTIES noted that “In summary, we observed a pattern of substantially reduced alcohol and drug use in every type of treatment modality, with reductions typically between one-third and two-thirds
Fathi, Director of ACLU National Prison Project talks about how it’s proven that solitary confinement leaves long lasting psychological and emotional harm. Someone with no prior history of mental illness will develop psychological symptoms if left in solitary confinement for too long. Whether someone does or does not suffer from mental illness, solitary confinement ultimately harms the person and is not a good way to take care of them. Another solution is drug courts which provides a sentencing alternative of treatment and supervision for people who have a substance abuse problem or if they have a mental disorder. Expert, John Roman, who is a research associate, suggests that having more drug courts is a good idea and will help bring the crime rate down.
Some of the reasons that policymakers and voters are favoring intermediate sanctions for nonviolent, low-risk offenders are because it releases the heavy economic burden on taxpayers (Schmalleger & Smykla 2015). Building more and more prisons to house inmates cost money, and that money comes from taxpayers. When more and more offenders are sentenced to prison, the prisons become overcrowded very fast. When overcrowding occurs, disorder is not far behind it. Having to hire more staff and train them correctly also cost the taxpayers money.
In 2014 there were 215,000 people incarcerated in federal prisons, almost half were there for drug-related offenses with the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenses in the 1980s, increasing the population by more than 800 percent (Malcolm, 2014.) “Moreover, drug offenders make up the single largest category of incarcerated offenders in Tennessee, serving an average sentence of 9.7 years” (Malcolm, 2014, paragraph 21.) By limit sentencing, we can address the issues of high cost, by using probation and parole for more misdemeanor
The creation of drug courts has had many positive effects on millions of lives and has helped with keeping certain familiar faces out of court. Though due to are countries fiscal crisis many programs have been cut or expansion has ceased. The criminal justice systems cost roughly 70 billion annual on the corrections system which is because of over reliance on incarceration. Instead of spending so much to increate people the courts could be sending them to reform programs that end
Similarly, Brown found that in a matched cohort study comparing traditional prison sentencing to drug court programs it was shown that there was significantly less recidivism in the drug court participants than in the offenders that were sentenced to jail or prison time. In this study 137 drug court participants were matched with offenders that had been sentenced traditionally. It was shown that the recidivism rate for drug court participants was only thirty percent, whereas the traditionally sentenced participants had a forty-seven percent recidivism rate. Brown also examined the time between program completion and participants committing a new crime. In the drug court participants, the mean time was 614 days, and in the traditionally sentenced participants the average time was 463 days (Brown,
Incarcerating youth for drug offences is an incredible detriment to their lives and can end up having permanent effects. By removing a juvenile from society and locking them in prison you are taking away their lives, their family and friends, and everything they had every known. Juveniles are often subject to harsh facilities and exposure to adult criminals who can foster the juveniles into worse criminals than they were to begin with. Likewise incarcerating youth exposes them to violence form their peers and abuse from those in charge of them. Incarcerating youth is effectively demoralizing them.
These programs are cheaper than incarceration, and they can require the convict to pay part of the cost such as the substance abuse treatment. Convicts can continue working and caring for their families, which is very important. Prison space for violent criminals is freed up by keeping nonviolent and first time offenders in the community. The purpose for intermediate sanctions are used as another method of punishment to lower the pressure on probation departments and correction facilities.
The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).
Prisons could let offenders out early and placing them on house arrest. With the breakthrough in technology this would allow the offender to be monitored by a monitoring device. This would help because it would save the taxpayers money and would let the correctional system focus on more serious offenders. House arrest has become more popular with prisons becoming overcrowded. House arrest is where the offender is restricted
The bureau is constantly trying to improve its treatment for inmates, lowering the number of new inmates, while deceasing the number of inmates who return to prison life. Programs both inside and outside of the federal prison system are conducted in an attempt to understand what is the driving force behind crime. As mentioned previously, one of the largest criminal offenses for inmate incarceration is illegal drug activity, either its manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, or use. Approximately fifty-one percent of inmates are incarcerated due to illegal drug activity. Studies are even conducted to determine how race and ethnicity play a social factor into incarceration due to illegal drug activity.
This model focuses on the individual needs of the offender and in doing so increases their chance of living sober once they reenter society. For example, indeterminate sentencing allows offenders who exhibit good behavior and participate in prison substance abuse programs to be paroled closer to the minimum sentencing term. This means the offender can be released from prison based on conditions set forth by the court. If the offender violates parole by committing another crime or failing to continue substance abuse treatment, they can be returned to prison. Furthermore, offering indeterminate sentencing for offenders who meet the criteria creates prison space thus helping with the ongoing problem of prison overcrowding (Seiter,
Why we should incarcerate drug users Currently one of the less heated but still talked about debates is the issue of what we should do with those who have been caught using illegal substances. Some people say that we should be giving them rehab, and some say that they deserve to be in their. Both sides have their points, but the evidence points towards incarceration being a better option. The reason our judicial system incarcerates drug abusers are because enforcement will discourage drug use, it will keep them away from innocent people, and it will punish the addicts so they know not to do it again.
However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).
