Accountability Courts and Diversion Programs

2021 ◽  
pp. 182-204
Author(s):  
Salmon Shomade
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Diversion Programs ◽  
Specialty Courts ◽  
Gate Keeping ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Specialized Courts ◽  
Criminal Behaviors ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on prosecutors’ roles in accountability courts and diversion programs, details their participation in creating these specialized courts and programs, explains their gate-keeping responsibilities, and discusses ethical rules raised by their participation. Specifically, the chapter describes drug courts and veterans courts, which are two of the most prominent specialized courts. Using these two specialized courts as representatives of other similarly situated courts, the chapter explains the history behind the creation of these courts, their structures, operations, and their specific goals of addressing the underlying causes of criminal defendants’ criminal behaviors. In the United States specialized court settings, the prosecutor, rather than being adversarial, tends to be collaborative with other court practitioners. In non-U.S. specialized courts, the prosecutors’ roles are not that significantly different from those of their U.S. counterparts. With ongoing efforts on reforming the U.S. criminal justice system, especially as it concerns issues addressed by specialty courts, U.S. prosecutors are likely to continue their support of these courts.

Comparing Plea Bargaining and Abbreviated Trial Procedures

2019 ◽  
pp. 702-727
Author(s):  
Gwladys Gilliéron
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
The U.S

This chapter compares U.S. plea bargaining with plea-bargaining-type procedures and penal orders in Continental Europe, with reference to Switzerland, Germany, and France. It first considers consensual criminal procedures across jurisdictions and why they exist, focusing on plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system and abbreviated trial procedures in European civil law systems. It then examines the extent to which abbreviated trial procedures in civil law systems differ from plea bargaining in the U.S. system, the problems inherent in consensual criminal procedures, and the question of whether there are any solutions. In particular, it explains how plea bargaining and penal orders may lead to wrongful convictions. Finally, it discusses prospects for reform of plea bargaining in the United States and in civil law systems in Europe.

Economics of decriminalizing mental illness: when doing the right thing costs less

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 566-570
Author(s):  
Darci Delgado ◽  
Ashley Breth ◽  
Shelley Hill ◽  
Katherine Warburton ◽  
Stephen M. Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diversion Programs ◽  
State Hospitals ◽  
Complicated Process ◽  
The Right ◽  
Number Of Individuals ◽  
Sheer Number

The United States’ criminal justice system has seen exponential growth in costs related to the incarceration of persons with mental illness. Jails, prisons, and state hospitals’ resources are insufficient to adequately treat the sheer number of individuals cycling through their system. Reversing the cycle of criminalization of mental illness is a complicated process, but mental health diversion programs across the nation are uniquely positioned to do just that. Not only are these programs providing humane treatment to individuals within the community and breaking the cycle of recidivism, the potential fiscal savings are over 1 billion dollars.

Drug Court Through the Eyes of Participants

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 971-989
Author(s):  
Susan H. Witkin ◽  
Scott P. Hays
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Community Support ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
Root Cause ◽  
Criminal Behaviors

Operating with community support and through partnerships among treatment providers and the criminal justice system, drug courts address substance abuse as a root cause of criminal behaviors. Drug court success depends heavily on implementing the drug court model with fidelity and adhering to widely recognized best practices, in particular, following the “Ten Key Components” of drug court success. This study assesses drug court procedures and practices through the eyes of those who were actively participating in it. Focusing on five rural counties that had recently established drug courts, the study summarizes the results of interviews with 15 drug court participants. Importantly, this study is an evaluation of the operation of the drug courts themselves from the perspective of the participants of these drug courts rather than an evaluation of drug court participant impacts.

"Brainwashing"

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Reichert ◽  
James T. Richardson ◽  
Rebecca Thomas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Movements ◽  
New Religious Movements ◽  
Parental Alienation ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
American Legal System ◽  
The U.S

The idea that an individual could be manipulated into performing acts “against their will” created a fear of “brainwashing” and, specifically, new religious movements (NRMs). Courts in the United States initially accepted evidence concerning “brainwashing” in cases involving NRMs, and subsequently the term has been applied in situations involving other behaviors labeled as deviant both in the U.S. and other societies. This has generated challenges for legal systems despite the inability of brainwashing-based claims to meet requirements for admissibility as scientific evidence. Brainwashingbased claims have diffused into other areas of the American legal system, including, for example, custody cases involving allegations of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as well as in cases involving terrorism. This report presents data on how brainwashing has been treated historically in American legal cases and its current uses within that justice system.

scholarly journals Data & Civil Rights: Criminal Justice Primer

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Rosenblat ◽  
Kate Wikelius ◽  
danah boyd ◽  
Seeta Peña Gangadharan ◽  
Corrine Yu
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Design Data ◽  
Marginalized Communities ◽  
Incarcerated Population ◽  
The U.S

Discrimination and racial disparities persist at every stage of the U.S. criminal justice system,from policing to trials to sentencing. The United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any of its peer countries, with 2.2 million people behind bars. The criminal justice system disproportionately harms communities of color: while they make up 30 percent of the U.S. population, they represent 60 percent of the incarcerated population. There has been some discussion of how “big data” can be used to remedy inequalities in the criminal justice system; civil rights advocates recognize potential benefits but remained fundamentally concerned that data-oriented approaches are being designed and applied in ways that also disproportionately harms those who are already marginalized by criminal justice processes.Like any other powerful tool of governance, data mining can empower or disempower groups. The values that go into an algorithm, and the metrics it optimizes for, are baked into its design. Data could be used to identify discrimination in current practices, or to predict where certain combinations of data points are likely to lead to an erroneous conviction. When algorithms are designed to improve how law enforcement regimes are deployed, the question that data analytics raises is, which efficiencies are we optimizing for? Who are the stakeholders, and where do they stand to gain or lose? How do these applications intersect with core civil rights concerns? Where can we use big data techniques to improve the structural conditions criminal justice system that lead to disparate impacts on marginalized communities? How do we measure that impact, and the factors that lead to it?

scholarly journals Gender and Criminal Justice Responses to Terrorism in the United States

2021 ◽  
pp. 001112872110475
Author(s):  
Summer M. Jackson ◽  
Katie Ratcliff ◽  
Jeff Gruenewald
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Gap ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Males And Females ◽  
The U.S

Generally, women receive more lenient treatment by the criminal justice system compared to men. Prior research on how gender shaped prosecutorial decision-making and sentencing outcomes has focused on conventional forms of crime, while less is known about how it operates in terrorism-related cases. This is a critical gap in a growing body of research on justice disparities given that women continue to make up a significant portion of terrorism defendants in the U.S. Utilizing data from the American Terrorism Study, we seek to answer how legal and extralegal case attributes of federal terrorism cases vary across gender, how gender shapes federal terrorism case outcomes, and how combinations of relevant case attributes uniquely impact court outcomes for males and females.

Drug Court Recidivism in the Rural Midwest: A 3-Year Post-Separation Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 002204262199307
Author(s):  
Theresa Wadkins ◽  
Julie Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Offending ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
United States Today ◽  
Substance Abuse Rehabilitation ◽  
Specialized Courts

Substance abuse continues to be a pressing social problem in the United States today. As the country battles an opioid epidemic, many jurisdictions have adopted the problem-solving court model in response. These specialized courts, known as drug courts, offer a rehabilitative approach to offender management. Drug courts balance substance abuse rehabilitation with community-based supervision and operate with the philosophy that addressing the addiction will result in a decrease in criminal offending. The current study examines the recidivism rates for 50 participants who have been separated (i.e., completed or terminated) from one rural drug court program in the Midwest for at least 3 years. Findings indicate that successful completion of drug court is associated with decreases in misdemeanor offending, and more importantly, decreases in felony offending. While preliminary, the findings of this research provide support for the drug court model in the rural Midwest. Further research in this area is highly recommended.

Other Specialty Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-133
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Specialty Courts ◽  
Treatment Courts ◽  
Community Courts

The development and success of drug courts resulted in the development of many other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter provides an overview of these other types of problem-solving courts in the United States, including (but not limited to) domestic violence courts, family dependency treatment courts, homelessness courts, truancy courts, veterans courts, DUI/DWI courts, and community courts. This chapter summarizes the sparse research that has been conducted on these courts and considers the future of these types of problem-solving courts. Specifically, this chapter considers whether there is a need for so many highly specific problem-solving courts, how these courts can expand their reach (and whether they should), aspects of these courts that are in need of additional research, and how these courts can function most effectively in today’s economic and political climate.

Arriving at a System of Pleas

2019 ◽  
pp. 11-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucian E. Dervan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
The U.S

This chapter introduces the reader to plea bargaining. The chapter begins with a discussion of the mechanics of plea bargaining and the dominant forms of plea bargaining in the United States’ criminal justice system. In doing so, the chapter examines the manner in which defendants engage in bargaining and the shadow-of-trial model of bargaining. The chapter then discusses the historical rise of plea bargaining in the United States and considers whether today’s plea bargains reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s vision of the system as laid down in the case of Brady v. United States in 1970 (Brady v. United States, 1970). Finally, the chapter concludes by briefly examining several recent Supreme Court plea bargaining cases and considers whether a renewed focus on plea bargaining jurisprudence is materializing.

Drug Courts

Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Boldt ◽  
James L. Nolan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Outcome Studies ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Problem Solving Courts

Several thousand drug courts operate in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Similar courts have been established in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. The first drug court appeared in Dade County, Florida, in 1989. This initial effort and other first-generation drug courts helped to establish a model for subsequent problem-solving courts focused on substance use disorders, mental illness, domestic violence, and other circumstances that frequently co-occur with criminal justice system involvement. A range of problem-solving courts—including mental health courts, DUI (driving under the influence) courts, veterans courts, prostitution courts, re-entry courts, and gambling courts—have been developed both in the United States and internationally based on the drug court model. The design of these specialty courts emphasizes collaboration rather than an adversarial due-process-based approach to decision-making, therapeutic interventions instead of the legal resolution of disputed cases, and informal, individualized engagement by judges and other court actors. Key features of the drug court model include the placement of defendants in treatment programs, the close judicial monitoring of defendants though periodic status hearings, and the use of criminal penalties as leverage to retain defendants in treatment. Some drug courts engage criminal defendants prior to the adjudication of their charges, but increasingly these courts operate post-plea with the imposition of program requirements as conditions of probation or a suspended sentence. Drug courts have been a politically popular response to the problems of over-incarceration and criminal system overload produced in part by the late-20th-century “war on drugs.” Outcome studies often report successes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. Significant critiques of the drug court model and of problem-solving courts more generally have been offered, however, raising questions about the reliability of the outcome studies and about other negative consequences of the model, including net-widening, debasement of the therapeutic intentions of the enterprise, and other distortions in both the behavioral health treatment system and the criminal justice system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document