Drug Courts: A Historical Perspective

In 1989, a team of criminal justice professionals in Miami-Dade County established the United State’s first drug court after expressing dissatisfaction with high recidivism rates.[1] At the time, Miami-Dade County was a hotbed for criminal drug activity. Cartel leaders and gangs had earmarked the area as a potential gold mine for drug addicts. Made up of primarily lower-income areas, the county struggled to contain the swarm of local level dealers as the number of drug addicts increased. Realizing they needed to find a way to bring drug activity to a minimum, not just simply reduce it, criminal justice professionals created a system that presented first-time offenders with incentives to get the treatment they needed.[1] The results from the system were phenomenal, and sent ripples throughout the nation.

After producing large success in the state of Florida, the genius system caught the attention of other states and most importantly the federal government. Nearly one year after the 1989 court experiment, the federal government began providing funding to states that adopted the effective drug program.[2] This is a trend that has continued throughout the evolution of presidential administrations. President Barack Obama allocated nearly 101 million dollars in the federal spending budget in 2012 to drug courts.[3] Further portraying the effectiveness of drug courts, Presiden Donald Trump allocated over 110 million dollars toward drug courts in his federal budget in 2017.[2] The repetitive allocation of highly coveted federal funds toward drug courts, regardless of partisan affiliation, further illustrates their successful nature. As of May 2017, more than 3,100 drug courts operate in the United States.[2]

In the years since Miami-Dade County pioneered the drug court concept, numerous studies have confirmed that drug courts significantly reduce crime, provide better treatment outcomes, and produce better cost benefits than other criminal justice strategies. [8]

Numerous studies found that drug courts reduced recidivism among program participants in contrast to offenders who elected not to participate. One of those studies concluded that within a two-year follow-up period, the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 40 percent before the drug court to 12 percent after the drug court started in one county.[3] A report by the National Institute of Justice indicated that the average reductions in recidivism as a result of drug courts range from 17 to 26 percent nationally.[3]

Compared to traditional criminal justice system processing, treatment and other investment costs averaged $1,392 lower per drug court participant. [3] Reduced recidivism and other long-term program outcomes resulted in public savings of $6,744 on average per participant.[3]

A review of five independent meta‐analyses, done by the White House in 2012, found that drug courts reduce crime by an average of 8 to 26 percentage points.[3]

Who Has Access?

Before explaining how drug courts function, it is imperative to illuminate how they are organized, and how an individual can qualify to take part in the specialized programs.

Although the criterion for every drug court program is different, the original mold established in Florida has set an eligibility precedent.

To be eligible for a drug court program, the defendant must be a first-time, non-violent drug offender, admit any priors, and be assessed by a special team to determine psychological fitness for the rigorous program.[4]Defendants that are, however, charged with offenses that include intent to sell or manufacture are automatically disqualified from eligibility.[4]

Additionally, a new model has also emerged that includes first-time, non-violent drug offenders that have already plead guilty but were not initially offered to participate in a specialized program or an offender that is charged with a more serious drug offense and intends to accept a plea deal by pleading guilty.

The courts are organized into five different main subsets that deal with diverse groups of people. Adult drug courts, the most substantial subset, caters programs toward adults age 18 and older.[4] Juvenile drug courts, the second-largest subgroup, aims to provide rehabilitative and educational assistance to minors under the age of 18.[5] The programs for juveniles allows for extensive judicial oversight that would not regularly be available in a traditional juvenile court. Family drug courts, the newest addition to the subset, target parents who carry substance abuse allegations and are involved in the child welfare system.[6] Family drug courts serve as an alternative dependency intervention by focusing on substance-using parents in need of comprehensive treatment and parenting support.[6] Veteran drug courts treat veterans dealing with substance abuse or mental health disorder while providing them with a chance to reintegrate into society adequately. Established in counties with dense populations of native Indians, tribal drug courts aim to adopt the drug court concept to the unique jurisdictional variables associated with Indian country.

How Does It Work?

MODEL FROM NIH

The traditional drug court model is shown in Figure #1. This model has four key stages.

Stage #1: Eligibility Screening

During eligibility screening, the prospective candidate’s criminal record, as well as psychological fitness, is thoroughly examined. Experts analyze if they believe a defendant is suffering from substance use disorder, mental disorder, or some variation of both. Criminal justice professionals also determine which court and which particular program would most adequately serve the needs of the defendant in this stage. If the participant is deemed eligible he/she will pass onto the next stage. However, if they are not, they will be referred to traditional prosecution.

Stage #2: Participant Confirmation

In this stage, prospective candidates are given a thorough presentation of the drug court program by an appointed court expert. They are subsequently asked if they want to participate. Additionally, the appointed court expert also presents the defendant with numerous eligible jurisdictions in which he/she can finish the program in. If the participant chooses to enter the drug program, they will move onto the next stage. However, if they do not, they will also be referred to traditional criminal prosecution.

Stage #3: Deferred Prosecution

After defendants accept to participate in the specialized program, they are put through a rigorous process referred to as deferred prosecution. Each program’s requirements differ; however, the Florida drug courts have, again, established a minimal precedent.

The programs usually last from six months to one year, depending upon various factors such as the risk for recidivism and psychological evaluations.[7] Throughout this period, individuals participate in weekly drug testing and monitoring.[7] They periodically come before a judge who examines and reviews their progress.[7] Participants who follow the rules and show improvements are eligible to receive incentives and other rewards. But a judge retains the ability to punish those who fail a drug test or refuse to fulfill program obligations.

Additionally, the court will also require defendants that are deemed to have substance use disorder or mental illness to attend weekly custom therapy sessions created for the specialized programs. [Dr. Mohsin]

If the participant succeeds in this stage, they will advance to the final step. However, if they meet a criterion that determines the failure of the program, they will again be referred to traditional criminal prosecution. The standard for failure varies from court to court; however, judges usually do not give participants a lot of leniency.

Stage #4: Succesful Completion

After a participant completes the program, they receive no further charges. In most cases, the arrest is completely wiped off their record, so that they can pursue steady employment without any deterrence.

A New Model

The new drug court model is shown in Figure #2. There is only two key difference, which occurs in stage two and four.

The additional model serves first-time, non-violent drug offenders that have already plead guilty but were not initially offered to participate in a specialized program or an offender that is charged with a more serious drug offense and intends to accept a plea deal by pleading guilty.

In this model, participant confirmation is a two-step process that is contingent on the defendant’s decision to participate and the defendant’s decision to enter a guilty plea. If these two criteria are met, the program will continue as Figure #1 until the final stage.

Upon completion of the programs, participants in Figure #2 will receive amended sentences, incentives, or waived sentences. In very rare cases, some defendants may receive completely expunged records.

Offering Another Perspective: A Testimonial by a Medical Expert

Statistics have shown that drug courts are very effective in reducing recidivism and tackling substance abuse issues at their core. Although these statistics are telling, they cannot entirely speak for the group of people that are arguably the most essential in the process of rehabilitation – medical professionals.

It is crucial, in this case, to garner an opinion of an expert that deals with large numbers of addicts and is familiar with drug courts. This expert, Dr. Faisal Mohsin, has been a practicing Psychiatrist for over 15 years. Holding the status of a board-certified addiction medicine doctor, Dr. Mohsin has been treating addicts for a little under five years. Dr. Mohsin was kind enough to answer a few questions that will allow us to further understand addicts, drug courts, and everything in between.

Q: So, when you say you that you treat addicts, what exactly do you mean by that? 

A: I evaluate them, I evaluate their addiction history, I evaluate them for their psychiatric history, and I prescribe them a treatment plan and I try to get them sober and I try to also stabilize their psychiatric condition and their addiction disorder. 

Q: When did you first learn about drug courts, just how involved with them are you, and would you say that they are a relatively new practice? 

A: I see patients who are currently enrolled in drug courts and I prescribe them medications to help stabilize their psychiatric condition. I first learned about drug courts about four years ago, while in the process of treating my patients. Also, yes, I would say that they are a newer practice

Q: Could you please describe how drug courts work from the point of view of a medical expert?

A: So drug courts are offered to non-violent patients who have a history of addiction, and their criminal activity has centered around substance abuse. So the drug courts are an alternative for them to be incarcerated, and it is a chance for the substance user to reform themselves and reintegrate themselves in society.

Q: From the perspective of a medical expert who has dealt with addicts for five years now, do you believe that drug courts are effective?

A: I strongly advocate for the use of drug courts in our legal system, and I think they’re an excellent alternative to incarceration, and they are highly successful. I absolutely believe they are effective.

Q: What are some challenges that may be presented by drug courts?

A: So drug courts are extremely structured, extremely vigorous and regimented. In drug courts, the patients have to go through four phases of treatment.

Q: Can you explain what these four phases are?

A: Okay, in phase one, the patient needs to make an inventory of their substance abuse disorder, be abstinent from substance use disorder, and get a job. I believe in phase two they have to maintain their job, earn an income, and they’re given some projects. In phase 3 they’ve completed their projects, um, they’ve been showing maintenance, good behavior, negative screenings. And in phase four that’s the time where they just basically strengthen the other phases and then they’re ready for graduation. 

Q: What sorts of projects and assignments are participants given?

A: Assignments could be to write a biography or their life story in addiction, write about the ways that they have hurt themselves and other people, and write about if they saw themselves in a state of addiction again, how they would help themselves, and things of that nature. If they do not complete their assignments, they cannot move onto the next level. If they stay on a level too long they get cited, meaning they could have to spend some time in jail or the judge could decide to remove you from the drug courts and put you back into incarceration. So the fact that they stay out of incarceration serves as a very good motivation to continue the drug courts since they avoid going to jail. And in drug courts they’re allowed to keep their jobs, if they have one they are encouraged to keep their job, and they are expected to come back to the drug courts, do their classes, etc. So a lot of people find drug courts very demanding, and very rigorous. You have to be very motivated in order to succeed.

Q: So given the fact that drug courts are very demanding and rigorous, would you say that they are costly as well? In comparison to incarceration?

A: I don’t know exactly what it costs directly to the individual, but to society as a whole, they actually save a lot of money. Because when A, patients are not using drugs they are saving a lot of money, and B, they are avoiding criminal behaviors, like stealing, selling things illegally, donating their plasma, which could be a health problem for many…

Q: So, going back to the structure of drug courts themselves, when you speak of  “graduation,” are there various different drug court programs under different names, or is it like mandated by the state so each state operates differently, or how does it work? 

A: Um, to be honest I’m not entirely sure, but I think that fundamentals of drug courts are the same across all states, and drug states are mandated by courts. They are very heavily supervised, and this goes back to your question about the challenges, drug courts are not an easy treatment modality for many patents because it is so heavily supervised and regimented. In drug courts, patients are expected to maintain sobriety and are constantly drug tested. These drug tests could be conducted on a schedule or they could be by random. Secondly, all patients are expected to attend classes, from the beginning to the end. There are no lapses. If a patient does not come in for a class or has absences that he or she cannot account for then he or she are given a citation, meaning they go spend a day in jail, or they could be demoted, or they may need to do extra time in the drug courts. 

Q: So these classes you speak of, are they related to the education of drug use and its harms?

A: Yes, absolutely, they’re related to education of drug use, harms of drug use, um, the consequences of drug use to the individual and their family and society, and they’re designed to help individuals to develop coping mechanisms in order to avoid dealing with stressors that could cause relapses. There’s a lot of education that goes into that.

Q: So out of the patients that are participants in drug courts, is there any one drug that you find to be the most prevalent in terms of abuse?

A: No, addicts are usually addicted to multiple drugs, In fact, many addicts are addicted to more than one drug,

Conclusion: What Does the Future Hold?

Over the more significant part of the last century, we have born witness to the adverse effects of a criminal justice system whose policies by nature are punitive rather than rehabilitative. Problems have not been solved, instead, more have been created. The system is quick to label repeat offenders as habitual criminals, rather than attempting to explain why people are committing crimes in the first place. From a legal standpoint, it is essential to begin changing this paradigm by reforming current criminal justice policies that punish those who deal with compulsive conditions such as substance abuse disorder. 

In a valley of broken policies, drug courts have emerged as a beacon of hope to those suffering from substance abuse disorder. Through instituting a rigorous model heavily supported by medical and criminal justice professions, the federal government has finally found a way to begin tackling the issue of addiction in our society. It is promising to see bipartisan support for drug courts, as it paves the way for installations similar to the drug court model in the near future.

As the 21st-century opioid crisis continues to rage, it is crucial to the future well-being of the United States that there is comprehensive criminal justice reform. Addiction is only on the rise, and we need to begin taking substantial steps to mitigate the threat it poses to the stability of our country. Serving as a larger metaphor for finding success in our society, drug courts prove that, to defeat any enemy, whether it be addiction or something of a more palpable nature, we must tackle problems at their core.

_________________________________________________

[1] Gonzales, Matt. “Drug Courts in the United States.” Drug Rehab, 2 Mar. 2020, www.drugrehab.com/featured/drug-courts/.

[2] Sacco, Lisa N. Federal Support for Drug Courts: In Brief. 1st ed., vol. 1, Congressional Research Service, 2018, pp. 1–14, Federal Support for Drug Courts: In Brief.

[3] Drug Courts: A Smart Approach to Criminal Justice. 1st ed., vol. 1, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2011, pp. 1–4, Drug Courts: A Smart Approach to Criminal Justice.

[4] “Adult Drug Courts.” Crime Solutions, National Institute of Justice, www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=7.

[5] Drug Courts: The Second Decade. National Institute of Justice, 2006, pp. 1–34, Drug Courts: The Second Decade.

[6] Family Treatment Court: Planning Guide. vol. 1, National Drug Court Institute and Children and Family Futures, 2018, pp. 1–158, Family Treatment Court: Planning Guide.

[7] National Institute of Justice, “Overview of Drug Courts,” May 14, 2012, nij.ojp.gov:https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-drug-courts

[8]“Drug Courts.” Drug Courts, Florida Courts, www.flcourts.org/Resources-Services/Court-Improvement/Problem-Solving-Courts/Drug-Courts.

Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)

History of the DEA

The DEA was founded in 1973 under president Nixon to “enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States”. This organization was the result of merging the “Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Office of National Narcotics Intelligence, elements of the U.S. Customs Service that worked in drug trafficking intelligence and investigations, and the Narcotics Advance Research Management Team”. The DEA was created as a reaction to the growing drug problem within the United States and the Nixon Administration wanted to show a single unified front against the epidemic.

Since its founding in 1986 to 2019 the DEA has made 954,959 domestic arrests. The DEA has evolved overtime to keep up with our ever-changing world. Between the years 1975-1980 the DEA published anti-drug propaganda for children as a measure of prevention. 1985-1990 the Red Ribbon campaign began due to the murder of a DEA agent by drug traffickers. Since then the Red Ribbon campaign has been an iconic part of every high-schooler’s year; usually a week long campaign devoted to preventing drug use. The phrase “drug use is life abuse”, is a particularly popular message. 1990-1994 the kingpin strategy was introduced to focus more on specific drug organizations in hopes that the main dealers would be caught. Between 1999-2003 the DEA laboratory system was established to address environmental concerns; as far as how the DEA handled their equipment, whether it be testing or the drugs themselves. 

DEA Today

The DEA leadership today consists of Uttam Dhillon as the Acting Administrator and Preston Grubbs as the Principal Deputy Administrator. Dhillon was appointed in July of 2018 and oversees a workforce of around 15,000 and a budget of $3.2 billion. While Grubbs handles administrative capacities as well as some intelligence and enforcement, Dhillon is in charge of intelligence, enforcement, some administrative duties, and regulatory activities worldwide.

Abroad, the DEA has 91 foreign offices in 68 different countries. However, they are not allowed to act with force unless the individual they are targeting is directly related with committing a US related crime. The DEA works closely with organizations such as the United Nations and Interpol in order to further anti-drug education as well as impose drug enforcement abroad.  

Gerard Kennelly, former group 44 High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) supervisor for Los Angeles, responded to a few questions regarding the DEA today and its effectiveness in his eyes as someone who worked within the broad field of narcotics.

Kennelly believes the DEA is very effective in its mission. However, according to this report drawn up by Mic, the DEA has a less than 1% efficiency rate. This was determined through calculating the amount confiscated by the DEA as a ratio to the estimated value drugs have in the US. This ratio was $477 million to $64 billion. This article points the problem at the minimal budget of $3 million and the lax attitude that doesn’t allow them to keep up with the pace that drugs move within our society. It is important to keep both perspectives on effectiveness in mind. The DEA is meant to enforce US policy when it comes to illegal substances and bring members of any drug trafficking organization (DTO) to face the criminal and the justice system of the United States. According to the federal law enforcement website the three main responsibilities of the DEA are “investigating and preparing for the prosecution of criminals and drug gangs who perpetrate violence. Seizing and forfeiting assets associated with illicit drug trafficking. Enforcing the Controlled Substances Act provisions that deal with the manufacture, dispensing, and distribution of controlled substances.” Kennelly interacted the most with field enforcement teams, intelligence units, as well as the extradition team. Through his work, he has had firsthand experience with drug trafficking and the large threats it poses not only to US residents but also national security. Kennelly dealt with many DTOs that were funding terrorist groups as well as corrupt officials. Whether it was law enforcement or government officials within the US or abroad, Kennelly recognized that, although the power of the DEA is to enforce US policy, it does a great many things simultaneously.

According to Statista 266,882 pounds of marijuana, 12,927 pounds of heroin, 11,682 pounds of cocaine, 1,504 pounds of other drugs, 944 pounds of methamphetamine, and 3 pounds of ecstasy have been seized in the 2019 fiscal year by U.S. Border Patrol alone. The DEA will continue to work to eventually eradicate illicit drug trafficking and use in the U.S.

For more information on the DEA you can visit their website.

Raid Image

What Does the Future Look Like?

While speaking Gerard Kennelly, he mentioned improvements that could be made within the agency. Kennelly saw a need for increased cooperation between municipal, state, and federal level law enforcement with the DEA. The communication between these different levels of enforcement could mean the difference between prosecuting a DTO or not.

Along with that, Kennelly revealed his thoughts of the DEA. He believes that the DEA will become almost completely intelligence-driven especially with all the technological advancements and if intel is properly communicated and shared as well as increased cooperation with foreign governments. However, the necessity of informants and other valuable roles will remain constant if the DEA continues to make these improvements and stays focused on their mission it is Kennelly’s belief that they will become even more effective in enforcing the US drug policy.

Along with that, the DEA will continue to do as it has always done by amping up pre-existing programs such as the Diversions Control Division, the El Paso Intelligence Center and other intelligence programs, the forensic sciences, as well as the multiple prevention programs already in place. Keeping up with the 21st century is difficult especially for a governmental organization. 

As a student who is learning about these programs, I believe it is imperative for the DEA to divert more resources toward harm minimization, prevention, and treatment. Along with this, it seems communication could be facilitated if there were main correspondents between the different US agencies. Besides that, the DEA seems to be an effective method through which US law is enforced in regard to its drug policy, however it must evolve to keep up with the speed of trafficking currently occurring.

Mandatory Minimums: A Deeper Analysis

A Brief History

Mandatory minimums were originally founded in 1984 as part of the United State’s Comprehensive Crime Control Act to alter drug-related sentencing. The purpose of this act was to establish mandatory minimums as a legal form of sentencing. As the years continued, legislators continued to lengthen drug-related sentences, which resulted in the creation of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. With the implementation of stricter rules under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, courts could now even implement “a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, with no evidence of intent to sell.” Furthermore, in the 1990s, an alternate form of mandatory minimum sentencing named “three-strike law” was created. It assumed that “a person is considered to be beyond rehabilitation after committing three crimes.” Given this claim, when one receives their third strike, their punishment might be much more severe than the crime they committed. This has resulted, for some, in life sentences for determining a “combination of relatively minor crimes just because the law requires the judge to impose a very long prison sentence.”

Effectiveness

The point that is raised the most often and the most controversial when discussing mandatory minimums is their true effectiveness in the ‘war on drugs’. In most cases, mandatory minimums take power away from the judges by forcing them to sentence many non-violent, first-time offenders to the harshest punishment possible while there are worse criminals serving lower sentences. In addition, these laws do nothing to combat the real problem of incarcerating those in the higher levels of drug operations. Not only does this policy prove ineffective from a judicial standpoint, but it “wastes billions of dollars” of taxpayers’ money to jail citizens who pose no threat to public safety while doing nothing to lower the use and distribution of drugs (FAMM). In reality, “nearly 300,000 people are held in state and federal prisons in the United States for drug-law violations… and their prison sentences have jumped 153 percent between 1988 and 2012, from about two to roughly five years” (Pew 2018).

Furthermore, it unfairly targets and prosecutes people of color, specifically Hispanics and African-Americans (FAMM). While roughly 80% of those in state prisons are due to drug-related charges, 60% of the population is either Hispanic or African-American (Drug Policy Alliance). This can be drawn from the fact that prosecutors are more likely to pursue mandatory minimum sentencing against these minority groups (Drug Policy Alliance). With this data, it is evident that mandatory minimums unfairly target certain racial groups without evidence of success. As research conducted by Pew Research concluded, “putting more drug-law violators behind bars for longer periods of time has generated enormous costs for taxpayers, but it has not yielded a convincing public safety return on those investments. Instead, more imprisonment for drug offenders has meant limited funds are siphoned away from programs, practices, and policies that have been proved to reduce drug use and crime”. 

Current Application

Currently, the Washington Post explained how the laws that mandatory minimums required were beginning to receive enough push back from each and every prosecutor and federal judge. Given the consensus over the poor policy, these laws were beginning to go under the process for reform in 2013 (Gertner et al). During this time period, the United States Courts reported, “the number of federal prison inmates convicted under mandatory minimum laws decreased by 14 percent from 2010 to 2016, although they still make up more than half of all federal inmates, according to a new report by the United States Sentencing Commission” (United States Courts 2017). However, in 2017, United States Attorney General, Jeff Sessions,  decided to rescind the legislation that was attempting to avoid mandatory minimums for low level and non-violent first-time offenders. His reason? Attorney General Sessions decided that mandatory minimums were “moral and necessary”(Gertner et al). Since 2017, the Senate was able to pass a bipartisan bill that would “allow for shorter prison terms and more judicial discretion in sentencing, unwinding some of the tough-on-crime policies that have swelled the federal prison population”(Sullivan). Specifically, it reduces the sentencing length for serious crimes from the mandatory 20 years to 15 and altogether eliminates the three-strike rule (Sullivan). This bill will also give power and authority back to the federal judges so they can make the decision whether or not to implement certain mandatory minimum requirements. While it is encouraging to see the status quo around mandatory minimums evolve, the majority of the people who were jailed under those clauses must remain in jail for the remainder of their sentence even if the same rules no longer apply. For this reason, there is still an extreme disparity between jailed minorities such as African-Americans compared to their white counterparts who were previously targeted much more severely under old guidelines regarding crack versus powder cocaine which was reported by the ACLU in 2014 (Racial Disparities in Sentencing 5). Hundreds have analyzed the effectiveness of these policies and they all reach the same conclusion — mandatory minimums are nothing but harmful.

What’s Next?

We have begun to see that real change is occurring and the implementation of mandatory minimums are finally beginning to decrease. The most productive actions that we can take is pressuring our government representatives to call for prison reform as a core goal in their platforms. In addition to the pressure put against mandatory minimums requires a call to replace the void it will leave. Instead of the unfair sentencing and lack of opportunity for rehabilitation, we must recognize how vital existing avenues of approach can be. These alternate methods include drug courts or other education programs as shown above to limit unnecessary incarceration and ensure the end of a vicious and immoral cycle. Urging our representatives within congressional and state legislatures to reduce this form of sentencing and implement more constructive measures that will restore humanity into our criminal justice system.

Works Cited

A political cartoon in the Louisville Courier-Journal by Marc Murphy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/8bth52/a_political_cartoon_in_the_louisville/

Aj . “Is It Time to End Mandatory Minimum Sentences? Plenty of Lawmakers Think so.” Medium, AJ On the News, 29 Feb. 2016, medium.com/aj-news/is-it-time-to-end-mandatory-minimum-sentences-plenty-of-lawmakers-think-so-78b512e8473a.

Cullen, James. “Sentencing Laws and How They Contribute to Mass Incarceration.” Brennan Center for Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, 5 Oct. 2018, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/sentencing-laws-and-how-they-contribute-mass-incarceration.

“Mandatory Minimums.” Equal Justice Under Law, equaljusticeunderlaw.org/mandatory-minimums-1.

“Mandatory Minimums.” FAMM, 18 June 2018, famm.org/mandatory-minimums/.

“Mandatory Minimum Sentences Decline, Sentencing Commission Says.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/news/2017/07/25/mandatory-minimum-sentences-decline-sentencing-commission-says.

“More Imprisonment Does Not Reduce State Drug Problems.” The Pew Charitable Trusts, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/03/more-imprisonment-does-not-reduce-state-drug-problems.

Nancy Gertner, Chiraag Bains. “Mandatory Minimum Sentences Are Cruel and Ineffective. Sessions Wants Them Back.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 15 May 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/15/mandatory-minimum-sentences-are-cruel-and-ineffective-sessions-wants-them-back/.

“Race and the Drug War.” Drug Policy Alliance, www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war.

Racial Disparities in Sentencing: Hearing on Reports of Racism in the Justice System of the United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 153rd Session, October 27, 2014, https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

 Sullivan, Eileen. “Shorter Sentences, More Judicial Leeway: What the Criminal Justice Bill Would Do.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/us/politics/sentencing-prison-bill.html.

URUGUAY

Key Point

  • First country to legalize the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana
  • Parliament gave approval in December 2013, with the support of former President Mujica
  • In 1974, Uruguay decriminalized they use of all drugs
  • Despite the overall approval from the government, 2/3 of the Uruguayan population is opposed to the legalization of cannabis regulation

Brief History

  • Despite the dictatorship, Uruguay has always been a liberal nation in terms of social reform, especially in Latin America
  • Gave women the right to vote in 1927
  • Legalized same-sex civil unions
  • Decriminalized abortions

2013 Law Specifics

  • Households can cultivate six plants
  • Membership clubs of 45 members can produce 99 plants
  • Membership clubs cannot be within 150 meters of schools or rehab centers
  • Pharmacies require licensing for sale
  • Law ensures the pharmacy price is the same as the black market price for marijuana

Consequences

  • Prison population has actually been increasing steadily since 2000 until 2016 and decreased from 2016 to 2018. However, this can be due to a variety of reasons such as violence or crime including homicides and robberies 
  • It is estimated that about four percent of Uruguay’s population uses some form of cocaine 
  • The amount of people that use cocaine from 1994 to 2007, more than quadrupled
  • It is also estimated that six percent of Uruguay’s population uses cannabis – One of the highest usage rates in South America

References

Newman, Tony & Hetzer, Hannah. (2017) Uruguay, First Country in the World to Legally Regulate Marijuana, Begins Retail Sales Next Week. Drug Policy Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.drugpolicy.org/press-release/2017/07/uruguay-first-country-world-legally-regulate-marijuana-begins-retail-sales

Russell, Melia. (2016). This South American country has decriminalized all drugs for 40 years. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://amp.businessinsider.com/uruguay-has-decriminalized-all-drugs-for-40-years-2016-6

World Prison Brief Data: Uruguay (n.d) World Prison Brief. Retrieved from https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/uruguay

CHINA

Key Points

  • Drug users have to be registered with the police and be subject to surveillance and tracking 
  • Police is the main decision body in terms or drug offenses, not the courts
  • Police can terminate any registrations and require drug users to take a drug test 
  • Users have to be approved by the police to start methadone maintenance treatment 
  • Drug addiction treatment centers also need to be approved by the police and the center is obligated to present patient’s information upon the police’s request. 
  • China can force its citizens to go to drug rehab

Drug Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China

  • New law enacted in August 2019
  • In terms of illegal drug control the government will allow “departments of drug administration will create records of the reliability of drug safety, increase the frequency of supervision and inspections for entities with a record of unreliability, and potentially implement joint punishment pursuant to State regulations.”
      • increase drug traceability which will promote drug safety 
  • “Drugs that are marketed overseas but that have not been approved domestically are no longer treated as fake drugs. Punishment imposed on offenders who import small quantities of drugs marketed overseas that have not been approved domestically may be reduced in some cases; if no harm is caused or treatment is not delayed, offenders can be exempted from punishment.”

Fentanyl

  • Much harsher crackdown on the exportation of fentanyl 

UK Government

  • The UK government warns UK citizens that the Chinese government has a harsh drug policy  which includes random testing at clubs, parties, and also homes. 
  •  If drugs are found present harsh measures include the detainment and even the death penalty in some cases.

Consequences

  • Incarceration rates increased steadily from 2000-2008 and decreased slightly from 2008-2014
  • China’s total prison population was 1.65 million in 2014 
  • A study from Zhang et al, estimated that for one China’s provinces, Yunnan, the drug use rates for illicit drugs has increased from 2011 to 2015

References

American Addiction Centers Editorial Staff. (n.d). he 20 Countries with the Harshest Drug Laws in the World. Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://drugabuse.com/the-20-countries-with-the-harshest-drug-laws-in-the-world/

Foreign Travel Advice: China. (n.d) GOV.UK. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/china/local-laws-and-customs

Meng, Jinmei. (2013). Chinese drug laws: Police-controlled approach to drug abuse. NIDA. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/international/abstracts/chinese-drug-laws-police-controlled-approach-to-drug-abuse

Myers, Steven. (2019). China Cracks Down on Fentanyl. But Is It Enough to End the U.S. Epidemic? The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/world/asia/china-fentanyl-crackdown.html

Wang, Yueqiang., Chen, Duo., & He, Jiangjiang. (2019). A brief introduction to China’s new Drug Administration Law and its impact on medications for rare diseases. Intractable & Rate Diseases Research. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6929591/

World Prison Brief Data: China. (n.d) World Prison Brief. Retrieved from https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/china

SWEDEN

Main idea

    • Quite opposite of the United States, the Judicial System regarding drug related offenses in Sweden is rehabilitative rather than punitive, and places great emphasis on harm reduction and minimization whilst striving towards an end goal of a “drug free” society.

Key points

    • To quote Sweden’s Ministry of Health and Social Affairs,”Drug policy is part of Swedish public health policy, which aims to reduce health inequalities in the population. Swedish drug policy relies on a balanced strategy in which restricting supply and reducing demand are equally important. The model focuses on preventative efforts, care and treatment, and social measures and measures to improve the health of people with substance abuse issues.” 
    • Swedish law does not divide drugs into “hard” and “soft” categories. Consequently, Marijuana is viewed as a highly dangerous substance in compliance with the CSA’s Schedule of Drugs, and has been identified as “the most used illicit drug” although it should be noted that the use of cannabis in Sweden is much lower than that of other European countries. 
    • Harm reduction and minimization is well practiced in Sweden as is evident with the nations’ use of clean needle exchange programs and safe injection sites.
    • Sweden prides itself on its practice of “preventative work” against drug use in its communities. This work has grown from initial small-scale projects and campaigns to larger, more structured work within local communities.  Such work requires collaboration between schools and clubs, social services, health and medical services, psychiatric services, etc. The objective is to strengthen protective factors around children and adults.  Preventive work is often based on cross-cutting measures in schools, clubs and associations, social services, medical and psychiatric services, etc. with a collective goal of strengthening protective factors regarding substance abuse around children and adults.

Works Cited

THE PHILIPPINES

Main Idea:

  • On the other end of the spectrum regarding drug policy, that which is excess used by the Filipino government is extreme and much more punitive than in the U.S. with little to no focus on harm minimization or reduction. 

Key Points:

    • President Duterte has carried out a brutal war on drugs since 2016: zero-tolerance policy for the use and sale of illicit substances
    • In an effort to terminate the illegal drug trade in the Philippines, Duterte’s war on drugs has become internationally notorious for its brutal killings and acts of violence against drug users and distributors. 
    • According to the PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency) 4,948 suspected drug users and dealers died during police operations from July 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018.
    • However, this is not an accurate estimate of all that have been killed by Duterte’s anti-drug initiative, as it doesn’t include killings at the hands of unidentified gunmen. Consequently, human rights groups estimate that over 12,000 citizens have been killed unlawfully at the hands of the PDEA’s “death squads”
    • As a result of these killings, investigations into human rights violations in the Philippines are being conducted. 
    • Despite such international backlash, Duterte is quick to silence his critics, and vows to protect his police force from prosecution.
    • According to govt.: “PDEA created for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on dangerous drugs/and or precursors and essential chemicals as provided in the R.A. NO.9165”
    • the PDEA website describes the creation of task forces, of which the government will exercise supervision, support, and funding. 
    • Prior to his inauguration,
    • Duterte has been quoted as having said the following:
    • “If I make it to the presidential palace I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug pushers, holdup men, and do-nothings, you better get out because I’ll kill you.” – President Duterte, May 8 2016

Works Cited

  • “Laws and Regulations.” Republic of the Philippines Office of the President: Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Republic of the Philippines, 2020, pdea.gov.ph/laws-and-regulations.
  • “Philippines’ ‘War on Drugs’.” Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch, 2020, www.hrw.org/tag/philippines-war-drugs.

For Profit Prisons

Following the “War on Drugs” first established by President Nixon in the early 80’s, a punitive system regarding drug-related offenses defined by laws such as mandatory minimums resulted in a whopping 3495% spike in the federal prison population over the past few decades. Consequently, as federal prisons have been left scrambling to deal with prison crowding, for-profit prisons entered the scene in the 80’s as an alternative to housing inmates using taxpayer money and governmental funds/aid. Surprisingly, the establishment of these facilities was initially a bi-partisan issue, and both sides of the isle supported the use of private prisons to solve the crisis within the prison-industrial complex sparked by Nixon’s War on Drugs, to the point where, as of 2016, over 8% of federal inmates (one in twelve) are incarcerated in private institutions.

To place emphasis on just how large the private prison market is, as of 2015, two of the largest private prison corporations, Core Civic and GEO Group, share a combined revenue of $3.5 billion while another company, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), has spent over $14 million on lobbying in over 30 states over the course of a decade. The War on Drugs is largely to thank for the power that this industry has, and because it could be argued that for-profit prisons are operating thanks to the initiative, some advocates insist that conservative lobbyists such as those who represent ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) work closely with the Private Prison system in order to advance policies that maintain mandatory minimums and other “pro-incarceration” laws that help keep said prisons full. Despite such claims, Steve Owen, a spokesperson for the CCA, maintains that the company “Never lobbies on policies.”

Needless to say, there is a large debate regarding the efficacy and even morality of federal prisons in comparison to their privatized counterparts. On one hand, private prisons have greatly helped to relieve the burden on states to house and care for inmates, therefore expunging those costs for states who may not be receiving adequate funding for their prisons in addition to possibly providing inmates with a better level of care than that provided by an under-financed institution. However, on the other hand, many prison abolitionists argue that the private prison industrial complex quite literally profits off of the bodies of criminals, many of whom belong to already disenfranchised groups. 

Works Cited


Gotsch, Kara, and Vinay Basti. “Capitalizing on Mass Incarceration: U.S. Growth in Private Prisons.” The Sentencing Project, The Sentencing Project, 2 Aug. 2018, www.sentencingproject.org/publications/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/.

Melber, Ari. “Presumed Guilty: How Prisons Profit off the ‘War on Drugs’.” MSNBC, NBCUniversal News Group, 29 July 2014, www.msnbc.com/msnbc/presumed-guilty-how-prisons-profit-the.

Racial Inequities in Regards to Substance Related Arrests

Another result of the current judicial system our nation has in place in regards to drug-related offenses would be high levels of racial disparity. Namely, communities of color such as Black and Latinx communities have much higher arrest and incarceration rates than those of white communities. That is, minorities are much more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, and sentenced, often resulting in an inescapable criminal record. For example, research has shown that prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for black people as for white people being charged with a similar or equivalent crime, and according to The Center for American Progress, “Black Americans are nearly six times more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses than their white counterparts, despite equal substance usage rates.” This discrimination at the early stages of the judicial system results in shocking disparities within the demographics of federal prisons. Consequently, approximately 80% of people incarcerated in federal prisons for drug related offenses identify as Black or Latinx. Aside from incarceration, the racial inequities perpetuated by the American judicial system have lifetime effects on people of color, such as deportation, and ultimately, family separation. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “More than 250,000 people have been deported from the United States for drug law violations every year since 2007.” This statistic represents an almost 43% increase in drug related deportations from 2007 to 2012, with the simple possession of Marijuana being the fourth most common cause of deportation. Incarceration and deportation combines have detrimental effects on communities of color, as consequences of these offenses often include being subject to policies that deny child custody, limit voting rights, and impede employment prospects in addition to receiving forms of public assistance. Although this situation is complex and may have a number of possible causes, many activists blame law enforcement’s focus on urban and lower income communities and areas for these disparities, viewing them as targeted attacks on people of color.

Works Cited

“Race and the Drug War.” Drug Policy Alliance, Drug Policy Alliance, 2020, www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war.

Pearl, Betsy. “Ending the War on Drugs: By the Numbers.” Center for American Progress, Center for American Progress, 27 June 2018,

POLICING

  • Standard → patrolling, responding to calls, and arrests; general practice that isn’t specific to drug control 
  • Community – wide policing → partnership between police and other community partners, usually schools. Formulates a relationship with the police built on trust
  • Hot spot → “Examples of tactics used are police raids on suspected drug houses, police crackdowns in high-crime areas, best-buy operations, street sweeps, saturated patrol, curfew and truancy enforcement, and warrant servicing.” 
  • Problem oriented partnership policing → partnerships with housing, local businesses, and community groups – often involve other aspects of crime including violence

TOOLS

  • Police departments are using devices like, MX908, a detection device that helps detect drugs like fentanyl very effectively in the field
  • In response to the all-time high deaths due to drug overdoses, more and more police departments are using narcan to prevent these deaths

CONTROLLED BUY STEPS

  • The police informant will meet with the police handler to arrange a drug sale. This is usually filmed for records.
  • Informant is searched by the police handler
  • Informant will receive tools for his controlled buy, a wire and marked money
  • Police handler will take informant to the location of the sale, which is usually surveillanced by cameras and surrounded by other undercover police
  •  The deal is completed
  • The informant will meet his police handler and return the purchased drugs, wire, and marked money
  • The informant is searched again
  • Police will then proceed by testing the drugs and any other steps

Law Enforcement Against Drugs

Law enforcement against drugs (LEAD) is an education program that creates “safer, health communities free of drugs, bullying, and violence.” This program serves to foster a relationship between students and the police department. The philosophy is that this curriculum will open and broaden the conversation surrounding drug addiction and its consequences. There are programs designed for the classroom and also in the streets. The program focuses not only on drug use, but making wise decisions and conflict resolution. LEAD is different from Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), because DARE focused heavily on drug addiction using long and boring lectures. LEAD allows for more interactive simulations. Researchers have found that DARE, an education program that was implemented from 1983 to 2009, was actually not effective. The program focused too heavily on being “anti-drug.” LEAD and other innovative programs focus on having a conversation on drug use and allowing students to make their own healthy decisions. 

References

Law Enforcement Against Drugs. (2020). LEAD. Retrieved from https://www.leadrugs.org

Nordrum, Amy. (2014). The New D.A.R.E. Program—This One Works. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-d-a-r-e-program-this-one-works/

PoliceOne BrandFocus Staff. (2020). How do you fight America’s deadliest drug? Insights from veteran officers fighting fentanyl. Police One. Retrieved from https://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/chemical-detection/articles/how-do-you-fight-americas-deadliest-drug-insights-from-veteran-officers-fighting-fentanyl-4XvJEygCVQoNrugq/

Practice Profile: Street-Level Drug Enforcement. (n.d). National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=49

Understanding the Role of Police Informants in Criminal Drug Charge Cases. (2018). HOLLAND & USRY, P.A. Retrieved from https://www.bhollandlawfirm.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-criminal-drug-case-informants.cfm