Enacting Alcohol and Other Drug (Testing)-Related Harms in an Australian Drug Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliana Sarmiento ◽  
Kate Seear ◽  
Suzanne Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Substance Dependence ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Therapeutic Value ◽  
Urine Testing

Alcohol and other drug testing is used in a range of environments including workplaces, schools, sporting tournaments, substance treatment and criminal justice system settings. It is also the cornerstone of the drug court model. Despite its centrality, it has received little scholarly attention. In this article, we address this gap through a study of how the drug-testing regime unfolds at one Australian drug court. Based on ethnographic observation, qualitative interviews with drug court participants, and analysis of drug court documents, this article examines how participants experience drug testing. Drawing on Carol Bacchi’s poststructuralist policy analysis framework, we examine how the “problem” of substance “dependence” is conceptualized in one drug court’s approach to drug testing, and we consider some of the effects of the policy. We argue that the everyday and seemingly mundane ritual of urination becomes a core technique for the governance of drug court subjects and note that the testing regime is onerous, regimented, and invasive. We also trace some of the effects of this policy and its implementation for participants. We suggest that the urine-testing regimen might operate counterproductively, intensifying participants’ involvement with the criminal justice system. Its reliance on an abstinence model may heighten exposure to substance-related harms and segregate drug court participants from the “rest of society,” inhibiting other aspects of their lives, including their relationships and employment prospects. Overall, we argue that these effects are at odds with the stated purposes of the drug court. We conclude with some reflections on claims about the therapeutic value and potential of drug courts and suggest opportunities for reform.

Examining the Impact of Prior Criminal Justice History on 2-Year Recidivism Rates: A Comparison of Drug Court Participants and Program Referrals

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Shannon ◽  
Afton Jackson Jones ◽  
Jennifer Newell ◽  
Connie Neal
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Recidivism Rates ◽  
The Impact

Drug courts seek to break the cycle of substance use and crime by providing a community-based intervention to individuals with criminal justice involvement and substance-related issues. This study examined recidivism over a 2-year follow-up period as well as factors associated with recidivism for a sample of drug court participants (i.e., graduates and terminators) and a non-equivalent comparison group (i.e., individuals referred/assessed for the program who did not enter). In the 2-year follow-up window, fewer drug court graduates had any convictions compared with program terminators and referrals; specifically, fewer drug court graduates had drug trafficking convictions compared with program terminators and referrals. Fewer graduates were arrested and incarcerated in jail and/or prison in the 2-year follow-up; furthermore, graduates had spent less time incarcerated compared with program terminators and referrals. Demographics (i.e., age, race, marital status) and prior criminal justice system involvement were associated with recidivism; however, these factors had differential impacts for the three groups (i.e., graduates, terminators, and referrals). Drug court shows promise as a community-based intervention that helps keep individuals out of the criminal justice system during a 2-year follow-up period.

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.

Improving graduation rates in drug court: A qualitative study of participants’ lived experiences

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Robert Gallagher ◽  
Anne Nordberg ◽  
Elyse Lefebvre
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Court ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Criminal Recidivism ◽  
Frequent Contact

For nearly three decades, drug courts have provided a rehabilitative approach within the criminal justice system for individuals who have a substance use disorder. The goal of drug courts is to reduce criminal recidivism, and research has consistently suggested that participants that graduate drug court are less likely to recidivate than those who are terminated from the program. This qualitative study adds to the literature by asking drug court participants ( N = 42) their views on the most helpful aspects of the program that support them in graduating and how the program could be more helpful to support them in graduating. Two themes emerged from the data: (1) participants felt that interventions that are common to drug courts, such as drug testing and having frequent contact with the judge, were most helpful in supporting them in graduating the program; (2) participants felt that the agencies that offered treatment for their substance use disorders used punitive tactics and judgmental approaches that compromised the quality of treatment they received, and they felt that this was a barrier to them graduating the program. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice.

scholarly journals Challenges of Effective Communication in the Criminal Justice Process: Findings from Interviews with Victims of Sexual Offences in Australia

Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Rhiannon Davies ◽  
Lorana Bartels
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Sexual Offending ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Effective Communication ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

This article focuses on gendered experiences of the criminal justice system, specifically the experiences of adult female victims of sexual offending and the communication difficulties they experience during the criminal justice process. Drawing on the findings from qualitative interviews about sentencing with six victims and 15 justice professionals in Australia, we compare the lived experiences of the victims with the perceptions of the justice professionals who work with them, revealing a significant gap between the information justice professionals believe they are providing and the information victims recall receiving. We then analyse the international literature to distil effective communication strategies, with the goal of improving victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system as a whole. Specifically, we recommend verbal communication skills training for justice professionals who work with victims of crime and the development of visual flowcharts to help victims better understand the criminal justice process. We also recommend that Australian victims’ rights regimes be reformed to place the responsibility for providing information about the criminal process on the relevant justice agencies, rather than requiring the victim to seek this information, and suggest piloting automated notification systems to help agencies fulfil their obligations to provide victims with such information.

Roadside drug testing: Incoherent policy or uncertainty by design?

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan Ricketts
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Road Safety ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Social Legitimacy ◽  
Driving Impairment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Negative Side Effects

Roadside drug testing regimes being implemented around Australia have been presented as essential for road safety but are compromised by significant policy incoherence. Prosecution based upon driving impairment has been replaced with prosecution based upon mere detection of a specified substance. The conflation of road safety and prohibition as the jurisprudential rationale for penalty by legislators is producing significant negative side effects for the criminal justice system and for the social legitimacy of the roadside testing process generally. Genuine impairment testing for drivers is important but it is not being achieved by the current procedures in place around Australia.

Drug testing in the Criminal Justice System: Solutions to a costly commodity

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Powell ◽  
J. Bankart ◽  
M. Christie ◽  
D. Bamber ◽  
T. Arrindell
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Drug Testing

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.

Closure and Justice: A Qualitative Study of Perspectives From Homicide Survivorship Experts

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 830-854
Author(s):  
Larissa Saco ◽  
Danielle Dirks
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Policy Practice ◽  
Homicide Survivors ◽  
Murder Victims ◽  
The Media

The criminal justice system and the media perpetuate the rhetoric of closure, which frames the end of grief for homicide survivors, or murder victims’ loved ones, as an attainable goal on their path to healing. Public discourse has also framed the death penalty as justice for survivors. However, little scholarly attention has addressed survivors’ experiences and perceptions of closure and justice. This research addresses this gap in the literature using in-depth, qualitative interviews with 36 community, academic, and criminal justice experts on homicide survivorship, 12 of whom are homicide survivors themselves. Using grounded theory, we derived six themes on closure and justice from the data. The majority of respondents indicate that survivors do not experience closure, and that they consider the term misleading. The question as to the meaning of justice produced more disparate responses. While many indicated that justice has unique meanings for individual survivors, holding the perpetrator accountable emerged as the most common theme. Half of the respondents also indicated that justice does not exist in homicide cases because of their difficult experiences with the criminal justice system. The findings have implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document