Drug Courts—Just the Beginning: Getting Other Areas of Public Policy in Sync

Abstract

Although an offender can complete a drug court program in the United States, have his/her charges dismissed or reduced (or some other amelioration of the criminal justice system penalty that would otherwise have been applied), become drug free, obtain a job, regain custody of his/her children, become a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, etc., he/she will still be deprived of basic rights afforded to other U.S. citizens because other sectors of public policy still approach addiction with a punitive orientation. Thus, despite the fact that an offender may have made a substantial beginning in recovery, other parts of the system make no accommodation for his/her recovery efforts in, for example, their denial of (a) welfare benefits to persons charged/convicted of drug offenses; (b) educational loans or other benefits to persons charged/convicted of drug offenses; (c) public housing to persons charged/convicted of drug offenses; and (d) voting rights to persons with felony convictions. In addition, deportation proceedings can be instituted - even for persons with a legal immigration status - based upon a charge or conviction for a drug offense. Without changes in other key areas of public policy, the goals and benefits designed to be achieved by the criminal justice system through drug court programs can be thwarted in both the short and long term by the failure of a shift in thinking in other key public sector areas that are critical to meaningfully reintegrating substance-addicted offenders into the mainstream of the community. Hopefully, policy-makers will begin to address this critical need.

Retribution or Rehabilitation? Conflicting Goals of US Policies Pertaining to Drug Felonies and Their Impact on Women

“…The exclusion of people convicted of drug-related felonies from public benefits has been widely criticized, and the costs have been analyzed indepth (Allard 2002;Cooper 2003;Mauer, Potler, and Wolf 1999;Moore and Elkavich 2008). Because TANF, SNAP, and income-based housing are provided for families below federal poverty levels, women are disproportionately impacted by this ban given that custodial parents are primarily women, and single mothers are more likely to be poor (Cawthorne 2008).…”

“…One of the flaws inherent in these policies is that many do not take into account whether someone is an addict and has finished treatment, maintained abstinence, or is otherwise rehabilitated (Cooper 2003). One of the flaws inherent in these policies is that many do not take into account whether someone is an addict and has finished treatment, maintained abstinence, or is otherwise rehabilitated (Cooper 2003).…”

“…Drug courts are diversion programs for individuals convicted of state-level felony drug offenses, and a reduction or dismissal of charges is usually granted after completion of the program (Cooper 2003). Drug courts are diversion programs for individuals convicted of state-level felony drug offenses, and a reduction or dismissal of charges is usually granted after completion of the program (Cooper 2003).…”

“…Courts, the treatment team, and the drug court participant work in a more collaborative way than is usually the case for traditional court systems, and wraparound services are provided for the offender to meet treatment needs (Shaffer, Hartman, and Listwan 2009). More than 1,600 drug courts have been developed across the nation (Mauer 2009) after formation of the initial program in 1989 (Cooper 2003). More than 1,600 drug courts have been developed across the nation (Mauer 2009) after formation of the initial program in 1989 (Cooper 2003).…”

Opioid Addiction in Rural North Carolina: A Criminal Justice and Public Health Issue

“…In these programs, offenders participate in drug treatment and testing, probation supervision, and report to scheduled status hearing before a judge (see Fox and Huddleston, 2003). Justice experts argue that there are advantages to participating in drug court ranging from having one's charges missed or reduced, getting one's substance abuse problem addressed, acquiring employment, and in some cases, retaining custody over one's children (Cooper, 2007). Sechrest (2003) reported that drug courts are successful at reducing drug use among participants.…”