Judicial Supervision of Drug-Abusing Offenders

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

Volumn 38, Issue , 2006, Pages 323-331

  Marlowe, Douglas B ^a  

^a TREATMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Antisocial personality disorder; Criminal justice; Drug court; Drug policy

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG ABUSE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; OFFENDER; PRISON; PSYCHOPATHY; PUNISHMENT; REWARD; ADDICTION; ARTICLE; CRIME; JURISPRUDENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES;

CRIME; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; PRISONS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33845917592     PISSN: 02791072     EISSN: 21599777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2006.10400596     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. 1998. The Psychology of Criminal Conducl. Second Ed. Cincinnati: Anderson.
2. Burdon, WM.; Roll, J.M.; Prendergast, ML. & Rawson, R.A. 2001. Drug courts and contingency management. Journal of Drug Issues 31: 73-90.
3. California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, Cal. Penal Code §§ I 2 I 0 el seq. (Deering 2003).
4. Cooper, C.S. 1997. 1997Drug Courl Survey Reporl: Executive Summary. Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. Available at http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/justice/execl.htm.
5. DeMatteo, D.S.; Marlowe, D.B.; & Festinger, D.S. 2006. Secondary prevention services for clients who are low risk in drug court: A conceptual model. Crime & Delinquency 52:114-34.
6. Farabee, D.; Hser, Y.; Anglin, M.D. & Huang, D. 2004. Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology & Public Policy 3: 563-84.
7. Festinger, D.S.; DeMatteo, D.S.; Marlowe, D.B. & Lee, P.A. 2005. Expungement of arrest records in drug court: Do clients know what they're missing? Drug Courl Review 5: 1-21.
8. Festinger, D.S.; Marlowe, D.B.; Lee, PA.; Kirby, K.C.; Bovasso, G. & McLellan, AT. 2002. Status hearings in drug court: When more is less and less is more. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 68: 151 -57.
9. Gardner, W; Hoge, S.K.; Bennet, N.; Roth, L.H.; Lidz, C.W; Monahan, J. & Mulvey, E.P 1993. Two scales for measuring patients' perceptions of coercion during mental hospital admission. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 11: 307-2.
10. Gendreau, P. 1996. The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In: A T. Harland (Ed.) Choosing Correclional Oplions Thai Work: Defining the Demand and Evalualing lhe Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Gendreau, P; Coggins, C.; Cullen, FT. & Andrews, D.A. 2000. The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Correclions Research 12: 10-13.
12. Gibbs, J. 1975. Crime, Punishmenl and Delerrence. New York: Elsevier.
13. Goldkamp, J.S. 2000. The drug court response: Issues and implications for justice change. Albany Law Review 63: 923-61.
14. Goldkamp, J.S.; White, M.D. & Robinson, J.B. 2002. An honest chance: Perspectives on drug courts. Federal Senlencing Reporler 6: 36972.
15. Hanlon, T.E.; Nurco, D.N.; Bateman, R.W. & O'Grady, K.E. 1998. The response of drug abuser parolees to a combination of treatment and intensive supervision. Prison Journal 78: 31-44.
16. Harrell, A. & Roman, J. 2001. Reducing drug use and crime among offenders: The impact of graduated sanctions. Journal of Drug Issues 31: 207-32.
17. Harrell, A. & Smith, B. 1997. Evaluation of the District of Columbia Superior Court Drug Intervention Program: Focus Group Interviews. Washington, DC.: Urban Institute.
18. Harrell, A.: Cavanagh, S. & Roman, J. 1999. Final Report: Findings.from the Evaluation of the D C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Program. Washington, D C.: Urban Institute.
19. Higgins, S.T.: Budney, A.J.; Bickel, W.K.; Foerg, FE.; Donham, R. & Badger, G. 1994. Incentives improve outcome in outpatient behavioral treatment of cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry 51: 568-76.
20. Hollin, C.R. 1999. Treatment programs for offenders: Meta-analysis, “work works." and beyond. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry 22: 361-72.
21. Huddleston, C.W.; Freeman-Wilson, K.; Marlowe, D.B. & Roussell, A. 2005. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
22. Kirby, K.C.; Marlowe, D.B.; Festinger, D.S.; Lamb, R.J. & Platt, J.J. 1998. Schedule of voucher delivery influences initiation of cocaine abstinence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66: 761-67.
23. Langan, P.A. & Levin, D.J. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, D C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
24. Longshore, D.; Urada, D.; Evans, E.; Hser, Y.; Prendergast, M. & Hawken, A. 2005. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2004 Report. Los Angeles: UCLA.
25. Marlowe, D.B. 2002. Effective strategies for intervening with drug abusing offenders. Villanova Law Review 47: 989-1025.
26. Marlowe, D. B. & Kirby, K.C. 1999. Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: Lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review 2: 1-31.
27. Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S. & Lee, PA. 2004. The judge is a key component of drug court. Drug Court Review 4: 1 -34.
28. Marlowe, D. B.; Festinger, D.S. & Lee, P.A. 2003.The role ofjudicial status hearings in drug court. Offender Substance Abuse Report 3: 33-46.
29. Marlowe, D.B.: Patapis, N.S. & DeMatteo, D.S. 2003. Amenability to treatment of drug offenders. Federal Probation 67: 40-46.
30. Marlowe, D.B.; Festinger, D.S.; Lee, P.A.; Dugosh, K.L. & Benasutti, K.M. 2006. Matching judicial supervision to clients' risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency 52: 52-76.
31. Marlowe, D.B.; Festinger, D.S.; Dugosh, K.L & Lee, PA. 2005a. Are judicial status hearings a “key component” of drug court? Six and twelve months outcomes. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 79: 145-55.
32. Marlowe, D.B.: Festinger, D.S.; Foltz, C.; Lee, P.A. & Patapis, N.S. 2005b. Perceived deterrence and outcomes in drug court. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23: 183-98.
33. Marlowe, D.B; Festinger, D.S.; Lee, P.A.; Fox, G.;Alexander, R; Mastro, N.K. & Caughie, J.M. 2005c. Contingency management in drug court. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Scienti fic Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Orlando, FL.
34. Marlowe, D.B.; Festinger, D.S.; Lee, PA.; Schepise, M.M.; Hazzard, J.E.R.; Merrill, J.C.; Mulvaney, F.D. & McLellan, A.T. 2003a. Are judicial status hearings a key component of drug court? During-treatment data from a randomized trial. Criminal Justice & Behavior 30: 141-62.
35. Marlowe, D.B.; Elwork, A.; Festinger, D.S. & McLellan, AT. 2003b. Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too, shall pass. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 25: 213-21.
36. Martin, S.S.; Butzin, C.A.; Saum, S.A. & Inciardi, J.A. 1999. Three-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment for drug-involved offenders in Delaware. Prison Journal 79: 294-320.
37. National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). 1997, Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Washington, D C.: Office of Justice Programs, U S. Department of Justice.
38. National Institute of Justice & National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997. Case Management Reduces Drug Use and Criminality among Drug-Involved Arrestees: An Experimental Study of an HIV Prevention Intervention. Washington, D C.: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
39. Nurco, D.N.; Hanlon, T.E. & Kinlock, T.W. 1991. Recent research on the relationship between illicit drug use and crime. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 9: 221-49.
40. Paternoster, R. 1988. Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law and Society Review 23: 7-40.
41. Prendergast, ML; Hall, E.A. & Roll, J.M. 2005. Judicial supervision and contingency management in treating drug-abusing offenders: Preliminary outcomes. Poster session presented at the 67th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Orlando, FL.
42. Satel, S.L. 1999. Drug Treatment: The Case for Coercion. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
43. Satel, S.L 1998. Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review 1: 43-72.
44. Saum, C.A.; Scarpitti, FR.; Butzin, C.A.; Perez, V.W.; Jennings, D. & Gray, A.R. 2002. Drug court participants’ satisfaction with treatment and the court experience. Drug Court Review 4: 39-81.
45. Schottenfeld, R.S. 1989. Involuntary treatment of substance abuse disorders-impediments to success. Psychiatry 52: 164-76.
46. Sydeman, S.J.; Cascardi, M.; Poythress, N.G. & Ritterband, LM. 1997. Procedural justice in the context of civil commitment: A critique of Tyler’s analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 3: 207-21.
47. Taxman, F.S. 1999. Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal 79: 182-204.
48. Taxman, F.S. & Marlowe, D. B. 2006. Risk, needs, responsivity: In action or inaction? [Introduction to special issue]. Crime & Delinquency 52: 3-6.
49. Thanner, M.H. & Taxman, F.S. 2003. Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal ofSubstance Abuse Treatment 24: 137-47.
50. Thibaut, J.W. & Walker, L. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. Tittle, C. 1980. Sanctions and Social Deviance. New York: Praeger.
52. Tyler, TR. 1994. Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 850-63.
53. Tyler, T.R. 1992. The psychological consequences of judicial procedures: Implications for civil commitment hearings. SMU Law Review 46: 433-45.
54. Vito, G. 1984. Developments in shock probation: A review of research findings and policy implications. Federal Probation 48: 22-27.