About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

18 Crim. Just. Pol'y Rev. 3 (2007)

handle is hein.journals/cjpr18 and id is 1 raw text is: Criminal justice .. i.... o x Review Volum 18I Number1 Probation Violations, Mach 2007 3-30 C 2007 S0ag hlic.tions Revocations, and Imprisonm ent 11 40400b... hosted at The Decisions of Probation Officers, http://online.sagepub.com Prosecutors, and Judges Pre- and Post-Mandatory Drug Treatment Nancy Rodriguez Arizona State University, Glendale Vincent J. Webb Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, 7X The focus of previous probation studies has been on identifying the significant predictors of probation outcomes (e.g., violations and arrests) and probation processes (e.g., revo- cation). In this study, the authors examine how the passage of Arizona's mandatory drug treatment law affected probation violations and the revocation process. They rely on pro- bation, prosecution, and sentencing case file data of imprisoned low-level drug offenders to analyze how the mandatory drug treatment law influenced the decision-making processes of probation officers, prosecutors, and judges. Findings indicate that the major- ity of revocations leading to incarceration involved technical violations and not the com- mission of new crimes. Furthermore, the type of violations significantly differed pre- and postimplementation of the law, as did prosecution and sentencing decisions. Policy impli- cations for probation supervision and drug treatment laws are discussed. Keywords: probation revocation; probation violations; mandatory drug treatment M andatory drug treatment laws, the latest drug control policy, require that low- level drug offenders receive substance abuse treatment while on probation rather than be incarcerated. As studies begin to assess the impact of such laws on offenders (Farabee, Hser, Anglin, & Huang, 2004; Hser et al., 2003; Longshore et al., 2004; Speiglman, Klein, Miller, & Noble, 2003), minimal attention has been devoted to how probation departments, prosecutors, and judges have adjusted their practices to process low-level drug offenders. For example, it is unclear whether the types of probation violations that result in revocations have changed since the implementation of mandatory drug treatment laws and whether prosecutors and judges have modified how they handle such revocations. Although prosecutors' and judges' discretion is ever present in court decision-making processes, the implementation of mandatory Authors' Note: Preparation of this article was assisted by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Substance Abuse Policy Research Program. The authors would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most