Drug abuse has become a major issue in our society and has led to increase caseloads in our
criminal justice system, particularly the courts. Possession of cocaine, meth and marijuana are
familiar charges we hear about constantly. According to Neubauer (2008), “arrests for drug
violations represent the largest single category of police activity – more than 1.5 million per
year” (p. 92). But there is usually some reason why an individual turns to drug use/abuse. Some
may use drugs for comfort, due to depression, work, or marital/family problems. Perhaps
military service has caused one to turn to drug use. Because of the increasing use of drugs by
Americans, our criminal justice system has implemented problem-solving structure, one that
focuses on providing hope, treatment and rehabilitation as a method of justice. This is more of a
social services approach which has yielded some positive and effective outcomes.
According to a National Institute of Justice study on drug courts, lower recidivism and costs
were among the success of drug courts. “Compared to traditional criminal justice system
processing, treatment and other investment costs averaged $1392 lower per drug court
participant. Reduced recidivism and other long-term program outcomes resulted in public
savings of $6744 on average per participant” (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drugcourts/
work.htm). The efficacy of drug courts is determined by the determination of the
participant to change his or her life. In addition, the judge’s role in these cases can also be a
factor in determining the success and efficiency of the program. Our textbook indicates that
Miami Dade County had favorable results in which “offenders in the Miami drug court treatment
program had lower incarceration rates, less frequent re-arrests and longer times to re-arrest”
(Neubauer 2008 p. 92). However, we must keep in mind that geographic locations have
different results and that what may work in Miami Florida may have different outcomes for
Atlanta or Chicago, etc. In my opinion, drug courts are effective to a certain extent, but there are
factors like geographic location, the type of drug dependency and the length of time an offender
may have been on the drug, and the work of the judge and the participants’ work toward
recovery all are factors that determine the efficacy of these courts.
Furthermore, drug courts are referred to as problem-solving courts, which mean they use their
authority to cater to the treatment and social needs of offenders. I believe that therapeutic
jurisprudence is an effective approach that is utilized by drug courts. Therapeutic jurisprudence
is defined as “judicial bodies such as drug courts that stress helping defendants in trouble
through non adversarial proceedings” (Neubauer, 2008). In other words, there should be an
emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation rather than the courts playing what has been termed,
devil’s advocate. With therapeutic jurisprudence, the rebuilding and remodeling of an offender’s
life to achieve tangible outcomes for not only the offender but also victims and society is the
main objective. Judges, as I mentioned earlier, are very active participants in the rehabilitation,
supervision and encouragement of the offenders’ treatment. According to Peak (2010), drug
courts have “reduced probation violation and dismissal rates in domestic violence cases,
improved public safety in communities harmed by crime, and are well worth pursuing” (p. 228).
At the surface, therapeutic jurisprudence appears to be a sensible attempt to help channel drug
court practice. However, at its core, this perspective represents a radical departure in defining
justice as well as the appropriate role in achieving justice for its citizenry. By claiming that
therapy is a sufficient means of justice may leave some to wonder, if such a sentencing practice
is a fair and appropriate method of justice. Is it enough or is it too lenient? Maybe a better
solution would be to offer drug treatment and counseling without lowering sentencing. With this
approach, there is no chance for the offender to “beat” the system.
At any rate, the social services approach, therapeutic jurisprudence, caters to long-term results
and effects for not only the offenders but society. One must admit to and be willing to seek help
in order to deal with an issue; this is particularly true of drug users. Therapeutic jurisprudence
also can be looked at in a more positive sense between community and the criminal justice
system. It fosters a heightened sense of community trust and confidence that is too often lost
within citizens and our criminal justice system. We should stay tuned for more research and
studies on this topic, and hopefully, criminologists are able to find a meaningful solution that
makes such a rehabilitation method fair and reasonable.
-Tosha Wilson-Davis
References:
Neubauer D. W. (2008) America’s courts and the criminal justice system. (9th ed.). Mason, OH:
Thompson Southwestern.
Peak, K. J. (2010) 6th ed. Justice administration: police, courts, and corrections
management. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey. Pearson. As found in Principles of
administration (Custom edition for Troy University, CJ6610). 2010. Upper Saddle
River. New Jersey. Pearson Custom Publishing.
U.S. Department of Justice. Do Drug Courts Work? Findings from Drug Court Research.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/work.htm.
