courts
The Problem:
Illicit drug use is a well-recognized public health problem. Overdose and other less acute harms are associated with the non-medical use of controlled substances. The policy response to illicit drug use in the United States has historically focused on a punitive model. Resulting high rates of incarceration have placed large numbers of non-violent offenders into correctional facilities. Life in prison exposes inmates to numerous health risks. High incarceration rates also strain families and communities particularly in areas already suffering from harms associated with low socioeconomic status. As a result, both illicit drug use and the prevailing policy response aimed at reducing it are sources of harm to population health. Reducing incarceration for non-violent crime – the majority of which involves use and trafficking of small amounts of illicit drugs – is widely recognized as an important policy objective. Congressional Research Service, GAO: Drug Courts.
The Law:
In response to growing evidence of the public health burden of over-criminalization and the failure of the traditional punitive approach to stem illicit drug activity, in the late 1980s, states and localities started experimenting with models aimed more at rehabilitation than retribution. Representing one form of what is often referred to as therapeutic justice, drugs courts emerged as a new model for dealing with minor drug-related crimes. These specialized courts aim to divert convicted drug-offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. Between 1989 and 2009, well over 2000 drugs courts were created in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice. Many drug courts are created though judicial rulemaking. Examples of laws creating drug courts can be found in Mississippi (M.S. Code § 9-23 et seq) and Illinois (730 ILCS 166.1 et seq).
The Evidence:
Wilson, et al., systematically reviewed studies assessing the effect of drug courts on recidivism. David B. Wilson, Ojmarrh Mitchell, And Doris L. Mackenzie, A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism, Journal of Experimental Criminology (2006) 2:459Y487. The reviewers identified fifty studies that fit their inclusion criteria. Using meta-analytic techniques, the reviewers combined odds-ratios across the studies in a random effects model. The overall summary odds ratio – which was statistically significant – was 1.62. The reviewers’ interpretation of the results from the summary statistic and other correlates in the regression was that recidivism decreased by 26% for offenders in drug courts versus comparison groups. However, methodological weaknesses in the majority of the included studies were noted as a source of caution against this figure. A more conservative estimate of the effect was found when they limited their review to more methodologically sophisticated studies. Overall, however, the authors view the evidence as sufficient to support the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism.
The Bottom Line:
According to the authors of a peer-reviewed systematic review, there is sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness drug courts in reducing recidivism among individuals convicted of drug-related offenses.
Publication Date: 12/07/2009
The Problem:
Youth violence is an enormous public health problem in the United States, standing as the second leading cause of death for people between the ages of 10 and 24. CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. WISQRS. Juvenile court systems have often been criticized for inadequately deterring and poorly preventing recidivism among violent youthful offenders. Steiner B, Hemmens C, Bell V. Legislative Waiver Reconsidered: General Deterrent Effects of Statutory Exclusion Laws Enacted Post-1979. Justice Quarterly. 2006;23(1):34-59.
The Law:
All states have adopted laws that allow judicial waiver of jurisdiction by the juvenile court system, which sends young offenders to adult criminal systems. Some states use a discretionary approach, giving deference to the juvenile court judge. Other states employ an automatic approach: jurisdiction is waived for specific violent offenses or when the offender has prior violent arrests. For examples of juvenile waiver laws, see RCW 13.40.110 (Washington), Fla Stat § 985.556 (Florida), and MN Stats 260B.101 (Minnesota).
The Evidence:
In a systematic review, a Community Guide expert panel reviewed seven studies evaluating the impact of six laws allowing juvenile transfer. McGowan A, Hahn R, Liberman A, et al. Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2007;32(4S):S7–S28. Across the studies, the reviewers observed an overall negative effect. Notably, there was a 34 percent median increase in recidivism among youths processed though adult systems compared to those retained in the juvenile courts. In addition, transfer of youths led to an increase in pretrial violence, victimization and violence in adult facilities, and elevated suicide rates among the incarcerated youths. According to the expert panel, there was not enough evidence to determine the true effect of waiver as a deterrent.
The Bottom Line:
In the judgment of a Community Guide expert panel, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that processing youths through adult systems has a negative impact on public health.
Additional Resources: Heilbrun, et al. A National Survey of US Statutes on juvenile transfer: implications for policy and practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1998;15(2):125-149.
© RWJF 2012
Contact Us |
Sitemap
Public Health Law Research is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It is housed at the Temple University Beasley School of Law.