Drug treatment courts - A viable option for Canada? Sentencing issues and preliminary findings from the Toronto court

Substance Use and Misuse

Volumn 37, Issue 12-13, 2002, Pages 1529-1566

  La Prairie, Carol ^a,f   Gliksman, Louis ^b,d   Erickson, Patricia G ^b,e   Wall, Ronald ^b,c   Newton Taylor, Brenda ^b  

^a Department of Justice ^*  (Canada)

^b CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

^c HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f National Crime Prevention Centre   (Canada)

Author keywords

Crime; Drug courts; Drug treatment courts; Sentencing; Therapeutic jurisprudence

Indexed keywords

ILLICIT DRUG;

AUSTRALIA; CANADA; COURT; DRUG DEPENDENCE; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; EVOLUTION; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MONITORING; OFFENDER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TIME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036445450     PISSN: 10826084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1081/JA-120014421     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. O'Neil, P. Funding cleared for B.C. drug court. The Vancouver Sun. 2001, February 20, B5.
2. Brochu, S. Estimating the costs of drug-related crime; 2nd International Symposium on the Social and Economic Costs of Substance Abuse, Montebello, Quebec, 1995.
3. Correctional Services Canada. Final Report of the Working Group on Reducing Addictions; Correctional Services Canada: Ottawa, 1990.
4. Fischer, B.; Medved, W.; Kirst, M.; Rehm, J.; Gliksman, L. Illicit opiates and crime: Results of an untreated user cohort in Toronto. Can. J. Criminology 2001, 43 (2), 197-217.
5. Chaiken, J.; Chaiken, M. Drugs and predatory crime. In Drugs and Crime; Tonry, M., Wilson, J., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1990.
6. Johnson, B.; Goldstein, P.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.S.; Spunt, B.; Miller, T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by Heroin Abusers; Lexington Books: Lexington, KY, 1985.
7. Reiss, A.J. Jr.; Roth, J.A.S., Eds. Understanding and Preventing Violence; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1993.
8. Webster, R. The Courting Game: A Handbook for Drug Service Intervention in a Court Setting; London: Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, 1996.
9. Goldstein, P.J. The drugs/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. J. Drug Issues 1985, Fall, 493-505.
10. Speckart, G.; Anglin, M.D. Narcotics use and crime: A casual modelling approach. J. Quant. Criminology 1986, 2, 3-28.
11. Federal, Provincial, Territorial Governments. Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada; Working Document for Consultation, F/P/T Committees on Population Health, Alcohol and Other Drug Issues, Advisory Committee on AIDS, Heads of Corrections Working Group on HIV/AIDS, February, 2001.
12. Inciardi, J.A. The harm reduction roles of the American Criminal Justice System. In Harm Reduction: National and International Perspectives; Inciardi, J.A., Harrison, L.D., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.
13. Parker, R.N.; Auerhahn, K. Alcohol, drugs and violence. Ann. Rev. Socio. 1998, 24, 291-311.
14. Nurco, D.; Hanlon, T.; Kinlock, T.; Duszynski, K. Differential criminal patterns of narcotic addicts over an addiction career. Criminology 1988, 26, 407-423.
15. Swartz, J. TASC - The next 20 years: Extending, refining, and assessing the model. Drug Treat. Crim. Justice 1993, 27, 127-148.
16. Lipton, D.S. The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision; U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1995.
17. Skolnik, J.H. Rethinking the drug problem. In Drugs, Crime and Justice; Gaines, L.K., Kraska, P.B., Eds.; Waveland Press: Prospect Heights, IL, 1997.
18. Gardner, D. Europe leading the way to smarter drug laws: Part one. Ottawa Citizen. 2000, September 15, A5.
19. Caulkins, J.; Rydell, C.; Schwabe, W.; Chiesa, J. Are mandatory minimum drug sentences cost-effective? Corr. Manage. Q. 1998, 2, 62-73.
20. Wild, T.C. Compulsory substance abuse treatment and harm reduction: A critical analysis. Substance Use Misuse 1999, 34, 83-102.
21. Hora, P.F.; Schma, W.G.; Rosenthal, J.T.A. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Rev. 1999, 74 (2), 439-537.
22. th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology Conference, Toronto, November 17-20, 1999.
23. Hoffman, M.B. The drug court scandal. North Carolina Law Rev. 2000, 78, 1437-1534.
24. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Drug Treatment Options for the Justice System, Statement of Steven Belenko, Ph.D. Oversight Hearing; Committee on Government Reform. United States House of Representatives: Washington, DC, 2000.
25. Hepburn, J.R.; Albonetti, C.A. Recidivism among drug offenders: A survival analysis of the effects of offender characteristics, type of offense and two types of intervention. J. Quant. Criminology 1994, 10, 159-179.
26. st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, November 15-18, 2000.
27. Belenko, S. Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population; National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), Columbia University: New York, 1998.
28. Deschenes, E.P.; Petersen, R.D. Experimenting with the drug court model: Implementation and change in Maricopa County, Arizona. In The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation; Clinton Terry, W. III, Ed.; Drug, Health and Social Policy Series, Volume 7; Sage: Beverley Hills, CA, 1999.
29. Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Probation and Parole Training - Criminal Code Amendment; North Bay: Ontario, 1996.
30. Erickson, P.G.; Haans, D.L. Drug war, Canadian style. In Drug War, American Style: The Internationalization of Failed Policy and Its Alternatives; Gerber, J., Jensen, E.L., Eds.; Garland: New York, 2001.
31. One major difference between Canada and the United States is the way the latter treats possession offenses. In Canada, even the worst offender on a possession charge would never get more than 90 days, and the majority, if they have a record, get a couple of days in jail. This is very different from the United States where there is a threat of very high prison sentences for mere possessors (Prior, personal communication, 2000).
32. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Adult Criminal Court Shelf Tables, 1994-1999; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, 2000.
33. Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Drug Offense Data - 1999/2000; North Bay: Ontario, 2000.
34. Statistics Canada. Adult Criminal Court Data Tables 1998/99; Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: Ottawa, 2000.
35. Carceral sentences of two years and over are served in federal correctional institutions.
36. Erickson, P.G. Recent trends in Canadian drug policy: The decline and resurgence of prohibitionism. Daedalus 1992, 121, 239-267.
37. Tonry, M. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment in America; Oxford University Press: New York, 1995.
38. Chin, V.; Dandurand, Y.; Plecas, D.; Segger, T. The Criminal Justice Response to Marijuana Growing Operations in B.C.; International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy: Vancouver, 2000.
39. Schneider, W. Vancouver, downtown eastside: Looking for solutions; Paper presented at the Harm Reduction Conference, Green College, Vancouver: University of British Columbia, September 22-23, 2000.
40. Reinarman, C.; Levine, H.G. Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice; University of California Press: Berkeley, 1997.
41. Makkai, T. The Emergence of Drug Courts in Australia; Australian Institute of Criminology: Canberra, 2001.
42. Office of Justice Programs. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components; U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1997.
43. Gliksman, L.; La Prairie, C.; Erickson, P.; Wall, R.; Minghao, H.; Luedtke, L.; Toombs, S. The Toronto Drug Treatment Court: A One-Year Summary: December 1, 1998 - December 31, 1999; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Toronto, 2000.
44. These instruments include application, first appearance, and monitoring forms; progress reports; court liaison assessment forms; urine screens; general well-being tests, as well as information from Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and Level 2 reports.
45. Although the evaluation started in April 1999, the DTC actually began in December 1998. The evaluation does not include clients who entered the program prior to April, and if it did there would be more graduates from the program.
46. Makkai, T.; Feather, M. Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA): Preliminary results from the Southport Site, 1999. Trends Issues Crime Crim. Justice 1999, 142.
47. Cresswell, L.; Deschenes, E.P. In the eyes of the beholder: Participant perceptions of a Drug Court Program. Law Society 2001, in press.
48. st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, November 15-18, 2000.
49. The mean number of rewards given the Experimental group was 4.6, and commendations was 11.95. The mean of sanctions, admonishments, and warnings for the same group were 3.82, 5.22, and 4.06, respectively. The mean number of jail terms imposed on the Experimental group was 1.2.
50. Interestingly, people who had withdrawn or had been expelled from the program were 3.5 times more likely to have had a record under the Young Offenders Act. In addition, people who were still in the program were about one-fifth as likely to re-offend as those who had been expelled or had withdrawn from the program.
51. There is no significant difference among any of the groups in the age of first involvement in the criminal justice system.
52. The single most frequent admitting charge was Trafficking for 51%, followed by Possession of a Narcotic for 37.9%, Property for 24%, Administration of Justice (breaches, fail to appear etc.) for 16.7%, Other Criminal Code for 7.1%, Communication for Purposes of Prostitution for 3.5%, and Violent for 2.5%.
53. Belenko, S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), Columbia University, New York, 1999.
54. There were no significant differences between the On-going and Expelled groups for mean number of re-offense charges in any of the offense categories.
55. Gottfredson & Exum 2000
56. The total is greater than 100 because people could score more than one response.
57. American University. Summary Assessment of the Drug Court Experience; U.S. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1997.
58. The expelled/withdrew grouping exhibited substantially poorer compliance during the first three months, which became significantly worse over the remaining period.
59. American University. Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts; Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1998.
60. Self-rated health (SRH) is assessed by having participants rate their health as anchored between the "best" (100) and the "worst" (0) imaginable health states.
61. [59] puts at 41%.
62. Statistics Canada. Illicit drugs and crime in Canada. Juristat, Volume 19, Number 1; Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics: Ottawa, 1999.
63. Brochu, S. Drogue & CriminaIite: Une Relation Complexe; Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal: Montreal, 1995.
64. The Toronto DTC actually began prior to the evaluation, December 1, 1998, and had a number of participants who were not part of the evaluation, and who have graduated from the program. Their numbers are not included in the figure reported here.