Drug court refers to a special court that is given a duty to handle cases involving substance-abusing crooks via comprehensive regulation, treatment services, drug testing, and instant sanctions and encouragements. This court provides people facing unlawful charges for drug utilization and possession with a chance to get into a substance abuse healing schedule in lieu of straight prison time. Drug court schedules bring the full power of all interveners, i.e. community leaders, law enforcement, vocational and educational experts, judges, defense counsel, prosecutors, substance abuse diagnosis specialists, correctional officers just to mention but a few. This is to ensure that they help the crook to deal with his or her substance-abuse difficulty from every probable angle. The aim of drug courts is to ensure they acquire reduction in substance-abuse amid crooks, recidivism and raise the probability of successful recovery. However, the conditions of a drug court are rigorous since the journey to recovery is not easy. A candidate has to be tested frequently, to ensure that he or she visits the court regularly, and to attend the healing programs so as to abide by the requirements of the dug court. Thorough research and evaluation have confirmed that, in places where drug courts are employed, regularities with procedures and models are established based on fair studies; they minimize recidivism and substance-abuse amid high-jeopardy substance abusing crooks. These courts that are well-established also raise the probability of successful recovery. This is done while minimizing the cost to the community below the historic charges of attending to these difficulties in the unlawful justice system. On the contrary, other scholars argue that drug courts are resources that are utilized in a wrong way and they have no importance to the society. The aim of this essay is to assess the effectiveness of these drug courts. It also seeks to explore and discover the purposes of these courts. This paper will address the below articles to acquire reliable sources of the issues to be discussed. The first article is Painting the Current Picture: National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States by Huddleston, Marlowe, and Casebolt (2008). The second documentary is an article by Addiction and Mental Health Research LaboratoryDrug treatment courts (DTCs) (2009). The last article that unfolds this topic of drug courts is Australian Responses to Illicit Drugs: Drug Courts by the Australian Institute of Criminology (2014).
Painting the Current Picture: National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States by Huddleston, Marlowe, and Casebolt.
This article explores effectiveness of drug courts in the areas that it is practiced in. There is a large number of crimes committed by individuals not because they are willing, but because of the influence and pressure of drugs. According to Huddleston et al., condemning the crooks who operate under the influence of a drug is a waste of time. In their article, they compare it with treating symptoms of a disease instead of treating the disease. They argue that most of these crimes are committed because of the influence and hence it is important to handle the route cause, which is the drug. In this case, they offer examples of countries that practice drug courts referring to them as successful and better placed in fighting drug taking habits. In this article, the authors argue that drug courts promote individual recovery, which eventually promotes family and national development. In this article, the authors demonstrate how drug courts reduce individual drug reliance through training victims on how they adopt the measures of stopping drug usage step by step. At the same time, they argue that drug courts assist in reducing the overall rate of recidivism. It is evident that drug courts minimize congestion in prisons since most drug crooks are engaged in different programs. Moreover, on acquiring therapy, victims are able to learn and become important people in the nation development (Huddleston, Marlowe, & Casebolt, 2008).
Drug Treatment Courts (DTCs) by Addiction and Mental Health Research Laboratory in the University of Alberta.
The University of Alberta is a research institution that has taken great interest in the issue of drug court. They conducted a research on this topic to determine the effectiveness of drug courts. The research also intended to establish whether drug courts reduced individual drug reliance and overall rates of recidivism. Based on the research, the university published an article Drug Treatment Courts (DTCs). This article argues that in most states most drugs are illegal. However, human beings turn to these drugs to search for comfort after losing hope in life, looking for fun, or as a result of lack of know-how. In this article, the University of Alberta argues that it would be important to handle this issue from the cause before it results in criminal actions. In addition, when drug addicts commit crimes, it is advisable to handle their mental status first before condemning them to a jail sentence. In the article, the university claims that this will minimize criminal actions in the society, as well as reducing drug usage in the society. In the nations where this form of justice is used, there are minimal cases of drug-related crimes since most of the criminals are trained how to control their senses even under the influence of drugs. Drug courts reduce individual drug reliance since victims of crimes are able to identify the wrong direction that they get into because of the drug influence. At the same time, the overall rate of recidivism is reduced by drug courts. In the conclusion of this article, the authors support implementation of drug courts all over the world. They state that it is a better way for handling drug-related cases (Addiction and Mental Health Research Laboratory, 2009).
Australian Responses to Illicit Drugs: Drug Courts by the Australian Institute of Criminology.
This is the third article that discusses the topic of drug courts. This article is written by the Australian Institute of Criminology with the intention of defining effectiveness of drug courts in a country. This article argues that, before taking drugs, victims have the knowledge to differentiate what is good and what is wrong. However, they choose to make the wrong deeds with the intention of taking refuge in the drug influence. As a result of this, the Australian Institute of Criminology argues that drug courts are utilizing the resources of a country in a wrong way and deny justice to the society. In this article, this institution argues that all the wrong doers should be treated equally depending on their actions. Drug courts and the usage of drugs should not prevent any person from facing legal consequences of his or her actions. The article concludes that drug courts are not effective and they are used to hide wrong doers in the society. The authors of this article totally disagree with the idea of dug courts reducing individual drug reliance and the overall rate of recidivism. The authors argue that turning to drugs is a decision made by an individual and only requires a personal decision to return to the normal way of living (Australian Government. Australian Institute of Criminology, 2014).
The first two articles Painting the Current Picture: National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United Statesand Drug Treatment Courts (DTCs) have the same agenda and draw the same conclusions. They insist that drug courts are essential to the society and effective. They reduce drug usage and level of crime in the society. They agree that drug courts reduce individual drug reliance and the overall rate of recidivism. However, the third article, Australian Responses to Illicit Drugs: Drug Courts differs from the other two and portrays drug courts as poor utilized resources and a method of assisting wrong doers in escaping from justice. The article criticizes drug courts and claims that wrong doers are wrong irrespective of the nature of their influence. The article disagrees with the argument that drug courts reduce individual drug reliance and the overall rate of recidivism.
In conclusion, many people in different parts of the world have engaged themselves in taking drugs. Most of them do this for leisure, fun, power while others believe drugs help with the reduction of stress. So many people have turned to drug intake, especially idlers, beggars, and even powerful people. However, in line with the studies based on the above mentioned articles, it is evident that drug courts have played a huge role in the lives of many individuals. Care, regular check-ups, and education that substance-abuse offenders acquire from these courts have reduced the overall recidivism rate. Counseling is offered to these crooks in these court programs. It enables them to learn and realize the harm brought about by drug intake. Furthermore, all the interveners in these courts work hard to ensure that their candidates will recover fully from their suffering. As a result, many offenders leave the rehabilitation units recovered, thus reducing the recidivism rate. It proves the fact that drug courts are an effective use of resources as they decrease incarceration rates and reduce overall recidivism rates. Therefore, all the nations worldwide should be encouraged to adopt drug courts since it will promote national development. This will be found in the justice forum together with the economic development of individual countries.
