$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
The paper explains the theory of drug courts that if drug offenders are able to reduce their drug use, it would systematically reduce their tendency to commit crimes. The paper discusses the savings of drug courts over incarceration in prison but points out that police make arrests for ten or twenty-dollar drug cases that the courts would not have even dealt with before. The paper argues that these petty drug charges are overcrowding the treatment facilities and are costing the taxpayer a great deal. The paper further argues that the criminal system seems to reward addicts and alcoholics for committing a crime by giving them long-term treatment that works at the cost of taxpayers; those who have a clean criminal record who must use their own money or rely on insurance, while criminals are paid for by the state. The paper contends that we need to use more discretion when sending offenders to treatment for displaying symptoms of their disease and thus allow more space for private members to get treatment.
From the Paper:"Once in drug court, the offender is assigned to a treatment program and a probation officer for an amount of time determined by the judge. Urinalysis testing is given at random with positive tests resulting in a violation to the court. Most drug courts require the offender to maintain a minimum of a four month abstinence from drugs and alcohol, attend 12-step meetings like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA), maintain stable housing, hold a job, and complete the treatment program(s) assigned by the court (Gebelein 128). Those in favor of drug courts believe them to be cost-effective. In 2002, the average high cost for operating drug courts was around $4,400 per year per offender; in contrast, the average high cost for incarcerating minor drug offenders was more than $30,000 per year, an average savings of $25,600 per offender (Gebelein 128).
"In the early 1990's flaws were discovered in the drug court system. Often, court orders for offenders to attend treatment were being ignored by those who work in the corrections department; prison or jail-based treatment programs were scarce. Those who were court ordered to attend treatment were more likely to be discharged than those who were in the programs voluntarily. To insure that drug and alcoholic offenders didn't get lost in the system, the Treatment Access Committee (TAC) was formed."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Roleff, Tamara, ed. The War on Drugs. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven, 2004. Print.
- Gebelein, Richard. "Drug Courts Are a Promising Solution to the Drug Problem." Roleff. 121-133. Print.
- Hostetler, Melissa. "Drug Courts Have Not Reduced the Drug Problem." Roleff. 134-141. Print.
- MacKenzie, Doris Layton and Craig D. Uchida. Drugs and Crime. Sage: Thousand Oaks, 1994. Print.
- Jacoby, Joan E. and Heike P. Gramckow. "Prosecuting Drug Offenders." MacKenzie and Uchida. 151-168. Print.
Cite this Persuasive Essay:
Drug Courts: The Answer to the War on Drugs? (2012, June 08) Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/drug-courts-the-answer-to-the-war-on-drugs-151361/
"Drug Courts: The Answer to the War on Drugs?" 08 June 2012. Web. 29 January. 2023. <https://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/drug-courts-the-answer-to-the-war-on-drugs-151361/>