The expansion of drug courts into numerous additional jurisdictions continues at a rapid pace. Despite this, and the commensurate growth of drug court literature, there remains a surprising paucity of empirical studies that test and develop an underlying theory for drug court. This research is an empirical study that analyzes and tests therapeutic jurisprudence as the theory behind the drug court mission and its day-to-day operations. A logit model is used to assess the strength of specific theoretical components on an offender's ability to complete the drug court program. The findings indicate, among other things, that the manner of interactions between the judge and offenders can increase the likelihood of an offender's ability to remain abstinent and stay engaged in treatment for the duration of the drug court program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American University Courts Technical Assistance Project. -1994-. Preliminary assessment of the S.T.O.P. Program of court supervised treatment and deferred prosecution for eligible drug case defendants. Portland, OR: Multnomah County Circuit Court.
2.
Anglin, D., & Hser, Y. S. -1990-. Treatment of drug abuse. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson -Eds.-, Drugs and crime -pp. 112-129-. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Belenko, S. -1998-. Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 1-23.
4.
Bullington, B. J., Sprouls, D. K., & Phillips, M. -1978-. A critique of diversionary juvenile justice. Crime & Delinquency, 24, 59-71.
5.
Choices Unlimited Las Vegas. -1996, April-. Clarke County drug court 42 month summary. Clarke County, NV: Clarke County Division of Rehabilitative Services.
6.
Cole, G., & Smith, C. -1998-. The American system of criminal justice -8th ed.-. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
7.
Cooper, C. -1997-. Drug court survey report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs.
8.
Cooper, C. S., & Bartlett, S. R. -1996, June-. Drug courts: Participant perspectives. SJI national symposium on the implementation and operation of drug courts, Alexandria, VA.
9.
Finn, P., & Newlyn, A. K. -1993-. Miami's “drug court”: A different approach: Program focus. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
10.
Goldkamp, J. S. -1993-. Justice and treatment innovation: The drug court movement. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
11.
Goldkamp, J. S. -1994-. Miami's treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings. The Prison Journal, 74, 110-166.
12.
General Accounting Office Report. -1995-. Drug courts: Information on a new approach to address drug related crime -Report No. GGD-95-159BR-. Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.
13.
General Accounting Office Report. -1997-. Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics and results -Report No. GGD-97-106-. Report to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.
14.
Hora, P. F., Schma, W. G., & Rosenthal, J. -1999-. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.
15.
Inciardi, J. A., McBride, D. C., & Rivers, J. E. -1996-. Drug control and the courts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Klein, M. W. -1979-. Deinstitutionalization and the diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. In N. Morris & M. Tonry -Eds.-, Crime and justice: An annual review of research -pp. 161-178-. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Leukefeld, C. G., & Tims, F. M. -1988-. An introduction to compulsory treatment for drug abuse: Practice and research. In C. G. Leukefeld & F. M. Tims -Eds.-, Compulsory treatment of drug abuse -Research Monograph Series 86-. Washington DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse.
18.
Leukefeld, C. G., & Tims, F. M. -1990-. Compulsory treatment for drug abuse. International Journal of the Addictions, 25, 621-640.
19.
Long, G. F. -1996-. Denver drug court: New approaches to old problems. Colorado Lawyer, 25, 29.
20.
Los Angeles County Municipal Courts Planning and Research Unit. -1996-. Drug courts in Los Angeles County: Preliminary data 1994-1996. Los Angeles: Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, County of Los Angeles.
21.
Newman, R. C. -1983, October-. Diversion of addicts from the criminal justice system in treatment. Paper presented at the National Conference of Standards, Ethics, and Practice, New York.
22.
Oberg, J. C. -1996-. An initial evaluation and analysis of the Ventura County drug court program. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Government.
23.
Perlin, M. L. -1996-. The jurisprudence of the insanity defense. In D. B. Wexler & B. J. Winick -Eds.-, Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
24.
Reed, E. A. -1995-. Drug court diversion program annual report. Wilmington, DE: Southern Drug Addiction Treatment.
25.
Rotgers, F. -1992-. Coercion in addictions treatment. In J. Langenbucher, B. S. McCrady, W. Frankenstein, & P. E. Nathan -Eds.-, Annual review of addiction research and treatment -pp. 206-229-. New York: Pergamon.
26.
Schiff, M., & Terry, C. -1996-. Predicting graduation from Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court. Justice System Journal, 19, 291-310.
27.
Slobogin, C. -1995-. Therapeutic jurisprudence: Five dilemmas to ponder. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1, 193-196.
28.
Tauber, J. -1993-. The importance of immediate and intensive intervention in a courtordered drug rehabilitation program: An evaluation of the F.I.R.S.T. diversion project after two years. Oakland, CA: Municipal Court, Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Judicial District.
29.
Tauber, J. -1994, Summer-. Drug courts: A judicial manual. Center for Judicial Education and Research Journal, 2, 1-32.
30.
Terry, C. -1996, Summer-. Dedicated drug treatment courts: A collaborative model of justice for local government. Spectrum, 37-47.
31.
Terry, C. -1999-. The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wexler, D. B. -1992-. Putting mental health into mental health law. Law and Human Behavior, 16-1-, 27-38.
36.
Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. -1991-. Therapeutic jurisprudence as a new approach to mental health law, policy analysis and research. University of Miami Law Review, 18, 979.
