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

54 Ct. Rev. 14 (2018-2019)
Looking Backward, Looking Forward: How the Evolution of Specialty Courts Can Inform the Courts of Tomorrow

handle is hein.journals/ctrev54 and id is 14 raw text is: Looking Backward, Looking Forward: How the Evolution of Specialty Courts Can Inform the Courts of Tomorrow LOOKING BACKWARD The war on drugs in the 1980s led to more punitive drug- related legislation and exponential increases in arrest and incarceration rates. In 1980, there were 580,900 drug violation arrests. In 1989, the number of drug-related arrests increased to more than 1.3 million.' The substantial increase in arrests, many which were nonviolent, overburdened courts and resulted in increasingly overcrowded prisons. Laypersons and legal actors became frustrated with the traditional approach to case processing and the revolving door of repeat drug-related offenders.2 In response to burgeoning dockets and prisons and drug-related recidivism, Miami-Dade County, Florida opened the country's first drug court in 1989. THE DRUG COURT MODEL Miami-Dade County's Drug Court integrated substance use treatment and legal sanctions to divert defendants out of prison and expedite case processes. To this end, the Miami- Dade County Drug Court targeted non-serious (e.g., posses- sion), non-violent felony drug offenders and charged judges with long-term treatment adherence oversight.3, 4 Judges held frequent hearings with participants and closely monitored their rehabilitation progress. If participants successfully com- pleted (graduated) the program (e.g., series of negative drug test results, no additional arrests), they could have their charges reduced or case dismissed. If participants failed to comply, they faced a variety of sanctions, including incarcera- tion.5 Participation was voluntary such that arrestees could plead guilty and choose to participate in the program, or they could choose the standard legal proceedings (e.g., plea bar- gaining or trial).6 Miami-Dade County's Drug Court was considered an inno- vative alternative to incarceration and the business as usual criminal justice approach to drug-related crime. The Drug Court was lauded for its collaborative efforts with drug treat- ment and social service agencies, and its emphasis on address- ing underlying problems associated with criminal activity. Despite this, some considered this early attempt to lack coher- ence and coordination7 Nevertheless, the Miami-Dade County Drug Court served as an exemplar for all future Drug Court models. Evolving Drug Courts incorporated additional services, such as job placement, public health, education and vocational training.8 Some jurisdictions also shifted their focus from less serious to more serious offenders.9 The Drug Court model is now defined by 10 Key Components, which jurisdictions must comply with to receive federal funding.10 Currently, there are over 1,300 drug courts in operation in the U.S. Although drug courts have evolved, it was the early or first generation models that facilitated a more therapeutic approach to crime and the advent of numerous distinctive problem-solving courts. THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE Although the Miami-Dade County Drug Court was not specifically modeled within a therapeutic jurisprudence frame- work, the court's approach exemplified therapeutic jurispru- dence principles.12 Therapeutic jurisprudence is concerned Footnotes 1. Drugs and Crime Facts, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATS. (Feb. 6, 2018), https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/enforce.cfm. 2. Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora, A Dozen Years of Drug Treatment Courts: Uncovering Our Theoretical Foundation and the Construction of a Mainstream Paradigm, 37 SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE 1469, 1470 (2002). 3. CAROLINE S. COOPER, ET AL., INTER-AM. DRUG ABUSE CONTROL COM- M'N, ESTABLISHING DRUG TREATMENT COURTS: STRATEGIES, EXPERI- ENCES AND PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES, VOLUME ONE: OVERVIEW AND SURVEY RESULTS 6-7 (Apr. 2010). 4. Arthur J. Lurigio, The First 20 Years of Drug Treatment Courts: A Brief Description of Their History and Impact, 72 FED. PROBATION 13, 15 (2008). 5. Greg Berman & John Feinblatt, Problem?Solving Courts: A Brief Primer. 23 LAW & POLICY 125, 126 (2001). 6. Lurigio, supra note 4. 7. Id. 8. COOPER ET AL., supra note 3, at 7. 9. David Olson et al., Implementing the Key Components of Specialized Drug Treatment Courts: Practice and Policy Considerations, 23 LAW & POLICY 171 (2001). 10. WEST HUDDLESTON & DOUGLAS B. MARLOWE, PAINTING THE CURRENT PICTURE: A NATIONAL REPORT CARD ON DRUG COURTS AND OTHER PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES 14 (July 2011). 11. SUZANNE M. STRONG ET AL., BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATS., CENSUS OF PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS, 2012 1 (2016), available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pd/cpscl2.pdf. 12. Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler, Therapeutic Jurisprudence as an Underlying Framework, in JUDGING IN A THERAPEUTIC KEY: THER- APEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE AND THE COURTS 105, 106 (Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler, eds., 2003). 14 Court Review - Volume 54 I Tatyana Kaplan, Monica K. Miller & Emily F. Wood

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