Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The use of sanctions in drug treatment courts (DTCs) to enforce participant compliance with treatment represents the convergence of two different, sometimes opposing, correctional philosophies, punishment and rehabilitation. Though the literature on DTCs tends to treat this merging of ideologies unproblematically, it could present a possible source of conflict within DTCs and other coercive treatment programs. Exploratory interviews with staff and participants in a juvenile drug court (JDC) (n=37) uncovered two types of tension resulting from the sanctioning system. First, staff members often disagreed with each other over the appropriateness of rewards versus punishments and punishment severity to motivate compliance. Second, staff members experienced personal ambivalence over the efficacy of sanctions as a therapeutic tool, particularly when faced with some juveniles' continued noncompliance despite the sanctions. Staff neutralized this tension by attributing noncompliance to the juveniles' lack of motivation, concluding coerced treatment only works for those who are “ready” for treatment. This would appear to pose a paradox for coerced treatment, which is meant to induce compliance specifically among those who are not motivated. Future research should investigate the implications this ideological contradiction among staff has for the therapeutic outcomes of coerced treatment settings.

Keywords

drug treatment court sanctions treatment juvenile coercion therapeutic jurisprudence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, E. , Levine, M. , Sharma, A. , Ferretti, L. , Steinberg, K. , & Wallace, L. (1996). Coercive use of mandatory reporting in therapeutic relationships. In D. B. Wexler and B. J. Winick (Eds.), Law in a therapeutic key. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Anglin, M.D. , & Hser, Y. (1990). Treatment of drug abuse. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime. Chicago, IL : The University of Chicago Press.

Braithwaite, J. (1999). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cosden, M. , Basch, J.E. , Campos, E. , Greenwell, A. , Barazani, S. , & Walker, S. (2006). Effects of motivation and problem severity on court-based drug treatment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 4, 599-618.

Deschenes, E.P. , & Greenwood, P.W. (1994). Maricopa County's drug court: An innovative program for first time offenders on probation, California: RAND.

Farabee, D. , Prendergast, M. , & Anglin, M.D. (1998). The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62, 3-10.

Friedman, A.S. , Granick, S. , & Kreisher, C. (1994). Motivation of adolescent drug abusers for help and treatment. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse , 3, 69-88.

Goldkamp, J.S. , White, M.D. , & Robinson, J.B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 27-72.

Hora, P.F. , Schma, W.G. , & Rosenthal, J.T.A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.

10.

Marlowe, D.B. , & Kirby, K.C. (1999). Effective use of sanctions in drug courts: lessons from behavioral research. National Drug Court Institute Review , 2, 1-32.

11.

McColl, W.D. (2002). Theory and practice in the Baltimore city drug treatment court. In J . L. Nolan (Ed.), Drug courts in theory and in practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

12.

Miller, A. (1994). The drama of the gifted child. New York: Basic Books, a Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

13.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

14.

Neuman, W.L. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

15.

Nolan, J.L., Jr. (2001). Reinventing justice: The American drug court movement . New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

16.

Satel, S.L. (1998). Observational study of courtroom dynamics in selected drug courts. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 43-72.

17.

Schwebel, R. (2002). Drug courts and adolescents. Counselor, February, 14-19.

18.

Smith, K.J. , Subich, L.M. , & Kalodner, C. (1995). The transtheoretical model's stages and processes of change and their relation to premature termination. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 34-39.

19.

Tauber, J.S. (1993). A judicial primer on unified drug courts and court-ordered drug rehabilitation programs (presented at the California Continuing Studies Program Dana Point), California, August 20.

20.

Tauber, J.S. (1994). Drug courts: A judicial manual. CJER Journal, California Center for Judicial and Education Research, Summer.

21.

Taxman, F.S. , & Bouffard, J.A. (2005). Treatment as part of drug court: The impact on graduation rates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42, 1, 23-50.

22.

United States Government Accountability Office ( 2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results from other outcomes, Report to Congressional Committees . http://www.gao.gov.new.items/do5219.pdf.

23.

White House (2002). National drug control strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Strange Bedfellows

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References