Sentencing to Drug Court

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Hope in Women Participating in Alternative Sentencing Programs

Purpose: Alternative sentencing programs for women with nonviolent drug offenses may provide opportunities to change the life trajectories of women and their families. The primary purpose of this study was to assess whether a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) intervention could improve levels of hope following treatment. A second objective was to assess whether MBSR intervention could influence perceived stress, self-compassion, and mindfulness. Methods: Participants attended a 6-week mindfulness class, with outcomes measured using pretest–posttest survey comparison. Results: Paired sample t tests showed improvements in hope, stress, self-compassion, and mindfulness following treatment. Discussion: Community-based intervention models, such as MBSR therapy in alternative sentencing programs, may alleviate negative psychological impacts experienced by female offenders. These results align with previous research that suggests participants may see improved ability to regulate emotions following MBSR therapy. This research indicates that MBSR therapy, for women in alternative sentencing programs, may promote hope as a learned psychological skill.

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING OF MONETARY CHARACTER IN THE TERMS OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

The author in this research paperpresents the description of restorative concept of justice. Specifically, it focuses on the description of alternative sentencing of monetary character, its role and characterization in the system of criminal law in the Slovak republic. The objective of forfeiture of property is to reach for the property of an offender, as well as, last but not the least, it aims to recondition the offender. The objective of forfeiture of an object is to eliminate the thing, which could be used for criminal offence. The basis is to obstruct the conditions of an offender for further criminal activity, or to deprive the benefit acquired by committing a crime.

Part-Time Jail Time: Jailors’ Perspectives on the Practice of Nonconsecutive Day Sentencing in Virginia

Jurisdictions across the Commonwealth of Virginia are working to broaden and refine the implementation of community-oriented alternative sentencing programs. From the perspective of practitioners, this article examines the statutory expansion of one such alternative sanction in Virginia—nonconsecutive day sentencing (“weekend” or “part-time” jail time)—as adopted in Senate Bill No. 36 during the General Assembly’s 2018 Regular Session. Presenting mixed-methods survey results from a large sample of correctional professionals across the Commonwealth, the study finds little practitioner support for the expanded application of weekend jail programming. Based on such stakeholder input, the article discusses anticipated adverse effects of the statutory amendments passed in SB36 and argues that practitioners, with the assistance of criminal justice researchers, must lend their expertise to legislators in policy development process from proposal through implementation.

Wstrzymanie wykonania zastępczej kary pozbawienia wolności w trybie art. 65a k.k.w.

Suspension of the execution of the alternative custodial sanction pursuant to Art. 65a of the Executive Penal CodeThe suspension of the execution of the custodial sanction under alternative sanction presents a high educational value as well as it reduces the incarcerated population and budgetary expenditures in this regard. It is therefore a perfect alternative to the alternative custodial sanction. An essential precondition for the commencement of proceedings for suspension of the execution of the alternative sentencing is a written declaration by the offender about his subjection to the execution of the community sentence and to rigours related to it. Considerations undertaken are based on the solution provided for in Art. 65A of the Executive Penal Code, besides include a dogmatic analysis, focused on the assessment of the character of the institution which is subject of this article. The author notes the absence of legislative consistency — in the context of the ratio legis of the analysed solution — considering the fact, that the title construction is based exclusively on the Court’s discretion.

Avoiding amnesty in the age of accountability: Colombia’s proposal for alternative sentencing

<p>One of the more conspicuous symptoms of the anti-impunity movement in transitional justice is a growing objection towards the use of amnesty. While international standards are slowly but surely building a legal barricade to prevent amnesty and impunity, states are searching for alternative measures capable of persuading hostile actors to demobilize. One promising solution to this is Colombia’s proposal for prosecutions accompanied by alternative sentencing under the <em>Marco Jurídico de la Paz</em>, which aims to demobilize the guerillas and end a 50-year conflict. But for this proposal to be a genuine alternative to amnesty rather than a political attempt to avoid international legal obligations, it must satisfy victims’ requirements for truth, justice and reparations. This paper examines the potential use of alternative sentencing as a mechanism of transitional justice within the scope of the “age of accountability”.</p><p><strong>Received</strong>: 31 March 2015<br /><strong>Accepted</strong>: 15 October 2015<br /><strong>Published online</strong>: 11 December 2017</p>