Mandating treatment for drug possessors: The impact of Senate Bill 123 on the criminal justice system in Kansas

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 296-304

  Stemen, Don ^a   Rengifo, Andres F ^b  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67349154771     PISSN: 00472352     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. American Society of Addiction Medicine. Patient placement criteria for the treatment of substance-related disorders: ASAM PPC-2R. (2nd ed. Rev.) (2001), Author, Chevy Chase, MD
2. Anglin M.D. The efficacy of civil commitment in treating narcotic addiction. In: Leukefeld C., and Tims F. (Eds). The compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice (1988), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (NIDA Research Monograph Series 86)
3. Anglin M.D., and Hser Y. Criminal justice and the drug-abusing offender: Policy issues of coerced treatment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 9 (1991) 243-267
4. Anglin M.D., Longshore D., and Turner S. Treatment alternatives to street crime: An evaluation of five programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior 26 (1999) 168-195
5. Austin J., and Krisberg B. Wider, stronger, and different nets: The dialectics of criminal justice reform. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18 (1981) 165-196
6. Blomberg T.G. Diversion and accelerated social control. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 68 (1977) 274-282
7. Blomberg T.G. Criminal justice reform and social control: Are we becoming a minimum security society?. In: Lowman J., Menzies R.J., and Palys T.S. (Eds). Transcarceration: Essays in the sociology of social control (1987), Gower Press, Farnborough, England 218-226
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform crime reports (2007), Author, Washington, DC
9. Gottfredson D.S., Najaka S.S., and Kearley B. Effectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial. Criminology and Public Policy 3 (2003) 171-196
10. Harrell, A. (1998, August). Drug courts and the role of graduated sanctions. In Research preview (National Institute of Justice Publication No. NCJ 184197). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Huebner B.M., and Cobbina J. The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment completion on probationer recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues 22 (2007) 619-642
12. Hylton J. Rhetoric and reality: A critical appraisal of community corrections programmes. Crime and Delinquency 28 (1982) 341-373
13. Inciardi J.A. Compulsory treatment in New York: A brief narrative history of misjudgment, mismanagement, and misrepresentation. Journal of Drug Issues 18 (1988) 547-560
14. Kansas Department of Corrections. 2006 Kansas Department of Corrections annual report (2006), Author, Topeka, KA
15. Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee. Minutes of the Senate Judiciary Committee, February 12, 2003 (2003), Kansas Legislative Services, Topeka
16. Kansas Sentencing Commission. Kansas sentencing guidelines desk reference manual 2002 (2002), Author, Topeka, KS
17. Klein D., Miller R.E., Noble A., and Speiglman R. Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: Lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's proposition 36. The Milbanks Quarterly 82 (2004) 723-757
18. Lang M.A., and Belenko S. Predicting retention in a residential drug treatment alternative to prison program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 19 (2000) 145-160
19. Maddux J.F. Clinical experience with civil commitment. The compulsory treatment of drug Abuse: Research and clinical practice (1988), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 35-56 National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 86
20. Merrit N., Fein T., and Turner S. Oregon's get tough sentencing reform: A lesson in justice system adaptation. Criminology and Public Policy 5 (2006) 5-26
21. Padgett K.G., Bales W.D., and Blomberg T.G. Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology and Public Policy 5 (2006) 61-91
22. Simpson D., Joe G., and Brown B. Treatment retention and follow-up outcomes in the drug abuse treatment outcome study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 11 (1997) 294-307
23. Stemen D., and Rengifo A.F. Kansas Senate Bill 123: A process and implementation evaluation (2006), Vera Institute of Justice, New York
24. Taxman F., and Elis L. Expediting court dispositions: Quick results, uncertain outcomes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36 (1999) 30-55
25. Tonry M. Mandatory penalties. In: Tonry M. (Ed). Crime and justice: A review of research Vol. 16 (1992), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 243-273
26. Tonry M., and Lynch M.J. Intermediate sanctions. In: Tonry M. (Ed). Crime and Justice: A review of research Vol. 20 (1996), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 99-144
27. Wild T.C., Roberts A., and Cooper E.L. Compulsory substance abuse treatment: An overview of recent findings and issues. European Addiction Research 8 (2002) 84-93
28. Wool J., and Stemen D. Changing fortunes or changing attitudes: Sentencing and corrections reforms in 2003 (2004), Vera Institute of Justice, New York
29. Young D., Fluellen R., and Belenko S. Criminal recidivism in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2 (2004) 313-323
30. Arizona Revised Statutes §13-901.01 (2008).
31. California Penal Code §1210 (2008).
32. Kansas Statutes Annotated, §21-4729 (2008).