Which Prevents More Drug Crimes, Treatment or Jail?
Posted on October 17, 2008
Filed Under Criminal Law, Drugs, Felonies, Law, Los Angeles, News |
Incarceration appears to be a more effective deterrent to drug crime than treatment, according to a study of Proposition 36 recently released by UCLA’s Integrated Substance Abuse Programs at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior. In 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, also known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which offered treatment and/or supervision instead of incarceration to nonviolent drug offenders. The UCLA study tracked the successes and failures of the program from its institution in 2001 through 2005, finding that program participants were more likely to be rearrested for drug crimes than those who served time in jail or prison.
Since its inception, the drug treatment program has been beset with problems, including perennially inadequate funding, lack of residential treatment facilities, poor intake procedures and a high participant drop-out rate. The UCLA report indicates that drug and property crime arrests were higher among Prop. 36 participants than among non-participants. In part, the difference may be due to fact that incarceration would have allowed jailed participants less opportunity to perpetrate crimes.
While violent crime arrests in California decreased more than the national average – 12% compared to 9% — there’s no statistical evidence indicating what effect, if any, Prop. 36 had on the decrease. The initiative’s only demonstrable success has been in saving taxpayers the millions of dollars the state would have spent to keep these drug offenders in jail.
According to the UCLA report, of the more than 30,000 drug offenders who enter treatment each year, about half are first-time offenders. The majority of program participants receive less expensive and less effective outpatient treatment. Unfortunately, hard-core drug use requires the concentrated multiple therapies available in residential treatment facilities. While the number of residential treatment beds available to Prop. 36 participants has increased slightly each year, it still falls woefully short of the current need due to limited funding and infrastructure.
While proponents still believe the program can be effective if properly funded and staffed, there is little hope for the future. In a slew of cost-saving measures enacted last month by Governor Schwarzenegger to belay California’s fiscal crisis, funding for Prop. 36 programs was cut 10% and voter-mandated evaluations and research for improvement were suspended. However, if California voters pass Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, in November, $460 million annually would be pumped into expanded drug treatment programs through integration of the two propositions.
Drug crimes are serious offenses and are aggressively prosecuted in California. An experienced criminal defense attorney skilled in defending drug crimes provides you the best opportunity for an alternative sentence and avoidance of jail or prison time.
-LegalPro
Comments
One Response to “Which Prevents More Drug Crimes, Treatment or Jail?”
Leave a Reply
•Criminal behavior can be reduced up to 80 % with treatment
• Arrests can be reduced by up to 64% with treatment.
The guidelines for drug abuse treatment as per NIDA are as follows:
• Recovery from drug addiction requires effective treatment, followed by management of the problem over time.
• Drug addiction is a brain disease that affects behavior
• Treatment must last long enough to produce stable behavioral change.
• Assessment is the first step in treatment.
• Tailoring services to fit the needs of the individual is an important part of effective drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations.