Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:33 am
Time: 12:33 am
Results for drug offenses
25 results foundAuthor: New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform Title: The Future of Sentencing in New York State: Recommendations for Reform Summary: This report calls for reforms to New York State drug laws; determinate sentencing, graduated and sanctions for parole violators are among the other recommendations offered. Details: Albany: New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform, 2009. 256p. Source: Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 113484 Keywords: Drug Abuse PolicyDrug OffensesParoleSentencing |
Author: New Zealand. Law Commission. Title: Controlling and regulating drugs Summary: This issues paper traces the history of drug policy and regulation in New Zealand and reviews the current approach to drug control and regulation. Details: Wellington, New Zealand: Law Commission, 2010, 402p. Source: Internet Source Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: Shelf Number: 117811 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyDrug OffensesDrug PolicyDrug Regulation |
Author: Hammond, Kate Title: Drug Driving in New Zealand: A Survey of Community Attitudes, Experience and Understanding Summary: This resarch involved a review of the literature around drugs and driving, in-depth interviews with 12 key experts from around New Zealand with knowledge and experience from drug and alcohol and/or road safety sectors, and an internet survey of 1164 New Zealanders. Each of these phases focused on issues around prevalence of drug driving; driver impairment associated with drug use, attitudes and perceptions towards drug driving, and ways to reduce driving under the influence of drugs. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Drug Foundation, 2009. 99p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2009 Country: New Zealand URL: Shelf Number: 117302 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (New Zealand)Drug AbuseDrug DrivingDrug OffensesDrugs |
Author: Whiting, Aimee Title: Drugs Survey Summary: This report presents the findings from an online survey of 1008 adults in Australia about using illegal drugs and people's attitudes to illegal drugs in Australian Society. Details: Crows Nest, NSW: McNair Ingenuity Research, 2010. 33p. Source: Internet Resource:Conducted for Hungry Beast, February 2010 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 118720 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug OffensesDrug PolicyPublic Opinion, Drugs |
Author: McManus, Rob, ed. Title: Altered States in the Palmetto State: Statistical Indicators of Illegal Drug Use Summary: This report brings together criminal justice and public health data to provide an overview of the extent and nature of illegal drug use in South Carolina. The report brings together indicators of illegal drug use such as drug arrests, drug testing results, court filings, admissions to prison and community correctional supervision, drug related emergency room discharges, drug related in-patient discharges and estimates from user surveys. Details: Blythewood, SC: South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, Statistical Analysis Center, 2008. 227p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117596 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug OffendersDrug OffensesDrugs (South Carolina) |
Author: Victoria. Office of Police Integrity Title: Ceja Task Force Drug Related Corruption: Third and Final Report Summary: "In October 2006, the work of the Ceja Task Force drew to a close with the fifth successful prosecution for drug related offences of a former member of the now disbanded Victoria Police Drug Squad. Following the delivery of the verdict in that case, a third and final review of the operations of the Task Force was commissioned. The review examined the background, methodology and achievements of the Ceja Task Force." Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2007. 35p. Source: Internet Resource; Accessed August 10, 2010 at http://www.opi.vic.gov.au/index.php?i=86 Year: 2007 Country: Australia URL: http://www.opi.vic.gov.au/index.php?i=86 Shelf Number: 117838 Keywords: Drug OffensesPolice Corruption (Victoria, Australia)Police EthicsPolice Misconduct |
Author: Great Britain. Sentencing Advisory Panel Title: Sentencing for Drug Offences: Advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council Summary: This advice to the Sentencing Guidelines Council makes proposals in relation to the sentencing of the most commonly sentenced drug offences. It considers those offences which derive from conduct intended to bring illicit drugs into circulation (including importation, production and supply) as well as those relating to possession and use. Details: London: Sentencing Advisory Panel, 2010. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2010 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/press/publications/2010/03/downloads/11-drug-offences.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/press/publications/2010/03/downloads/11-drug-offences.pdf Shelf Number: 119853 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug OffensesDrug TraffickingSentencing |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Drug-Misusing Offenders: Results from the 2008 Cohort for England and Wales Summary: This report presents statistics on the proven offending by individuals identified as Class A drug-misusing offenders. Both drug use amongst offenders, and their levels of offending can be difficult to measure with confidence. The data presented in this report are intended to provide a proxy measure which indicates the level of proven offending2 by known (Class A) drug-misusing individuals who have been identified through their contact with the criminal justice system. Local agencies work to reduce the offending of individuals who are identified as drug users through a partnership approach involving local authorities, criminal justice integrated teams (CJITs), drug action teams (DATs), treatment services, police, probation, prisons and other partners and agencies. A wide range of interventions and partners are involved. Results from the analysis of two different datasets are presented in this report: a national measure for the whole of England and Wales, and a local measure for individual partnership areas. More information is given on both of these datasets below and in the explanatory notes at the end of the report. It is important to note that neither of these datasets constitute a measure of offending by all drug-misusing individuals; they only cover those offenders that were identified by contact with the criminal justice system in a given time period. Details: London: Home Office, 2010. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2010 at: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/misc0210.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/misc0210.pdf Shelf Number: 119844 Keywords: Crime StatisticsDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug OffendersDrug Offenses |
Author: Holmes, Jessie Title: Trends in Possession and Use of Narcotics and Cocaine Summary: This brief describes trends in possession and use of narcotics and cocaine, characteristics of these offences and offenders, and court outcomes for those charged with possession and/or use of narcotics or cocaine. Descriptive analyses were conducted on data sourced from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research’s police recorded criminal incident and person of interest databases as well as from the NSW Reoffending Database and NSW Local Criminal Courts. Data from NSW Health on recorded opioid and cocaine overdoses was also analysed. Recorded incidents of narcotics possession and opioid overdoses fell sharply between 1999 and 2006. Since 2006 both narcotics possession and opioid overdoses doubled, however their levels are still much lower than those recorded prior to the heroin shortage. Recorded incidents of cocaine possession and overdoses have been increasing since 2003 and in 2009, both reached their highest levels in 15 years. Narcotics possession incidents were generally detected on streets and footpaths and at residential premises within Sydney’s CBD and in the Fairfield and Liverpool Local Government Areas. Cocaine possession incidents were detected on streets and footpaths, and at licensed and residential premises, located in Sydney’s CBD and the Eastern Suburbs. Narcotics and cocaine possession offenders tended to be males aged 20 to 39 years. Almost all offenders convicted of narcotics possession had prior convictions (93%) compared with less than half of those convicted of cocaine possession (49%). Most offenders convicted of these offences in 2008 were issued with fines averaging $355 for narcotics possession and $406 for cocaine possession. Taking into account data from other sources, these results suggest that actual levels of narcotics and cocaine use are increasing in NSW. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2010. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 52: Accessed October 19, 2010 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb52.pdf/$file/bb52.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb52.pdf/$file/bb52.pdf Shelf Number: 120009 Keywords: CocaineDrug OffendersDrug OffensesHeroinIllicit DrugsNarcotics |
Author: Lyons, Suzi Title: Close to Home: A Study on the Misuse of Drugs and Alcohol in the Midland Region Summary: The Midlands Regional Drugs Task Force (MRDTF) commissioned this study in order to establish an evidence base for drug-related issues in the Midlands region to inform the development of appropriate strategies and to respond to these issues in four selected communities. A rapid situation assessment technique was used, bringing together information from several different sources as well as interviews and focus groups with key informants in four selected communities. The key findings include the following. The MRDTF area covers four counties with a population of approximately one-quarter of a million people, and has seen a rise in its population and a change of ethnic mix over the past years. Overall it has marginally lower educational levels and housing occupancy than the national levels. One in five of the population in the MRDTF area has used an illegal drug at least once in their lifetime. Younger adults, especially men used illegal drugs, however it is shown that a proportion of women have used legal drugs. The majority of alcohol and drug use appears to start before the age of 18. The serious impact of this is clear: two out of every five drug-related deaths in the MRDTF area was a person aged 20 to 29 years of age. Alcohol use is also very prevalent among the population and was the main problem substance treated in the region (2004 – 2007). It was also implicated as an additional substance in many cases treated for polysubstance use. Alcohol (in conjunction with another drug or substance) was implicated in over onequarter of drug-related deaths in the region. Cannabis was the most commonly used drug in the general population, but the data indicated that ecstasy, cocaine and heroin was also available in the region, along with a range of other illegal and legal drugs. Cocaine use emerged as a newer trend. An opiate (mainly heroin) was the main problem drug treated in the region. Heroin and other opiates were implicated in over one-third of all deaths due to poisonings reported in the MRDTF area between 1999 and 2005. While the number of people who sought treatment for benzodiazepine addiction was very small, there was evidence that it was being abused in the MRDTF area and has been implicated in more drug-related deaths in the area than any other substance. Benzodiazepines were used by opiate and alcohol users. Polysubstance use among drug users in the region was evident. The upward trend in prosecutions for heroin in the two Garda Divisions comprising the MRDTF area indicated that the heroin market has spread to these four counties. Although the number of prosecutions for cocaine was lower it follows a similar upward trend. Details: Offaly, Ireland: Midlands Regional Drugs Task Force, 2010. 111p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2011 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13108/1/MRDTF_Report_Close_to_home.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13108/1/MRDTF_Report_Close_to_home.pdf Shelf Number: 121060 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and Crime (Ireland)Drug OffendersDrug Offenses |
Author: Strom, Kevin J. Title: NIJ Controlled Substances Case Processing Study Summary: The processing and analysis of controlled substance evidence accounts for a significant proportion of the work performed by forensic crime laboratories. Crime laboratories are faced with ever-increasing caseloads and demands for prompt analytical information, and the impact of drug chemistry analysis on laboratory backlogs has been largely overlooked. RTI International was funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to conduct the Controlled Substances Case Processing Study. The primary objectives of the study were to (1) gain an improved understanding of how controlled substances cases are processed, from the point of collection (law enforcement) through analysis (forensic laboratories) to subsequent criminal justice processes (prosecution), including factors that influence decision making at different stages in the process; (2) describe the role that controlled substances evidence plays in charging decisions by prosecutors, pretrial plea negotiations, and posttrial convictions; and (3) gather descriptive information from a range of U.S. jurisdictions that could be used to identify problems and develop systemic solutions to case backlogs and other inefficiencies in these forensic systems. Data were collected from a purposive sample of 10 jurisdictions, which represented a wide variation of different law enforcement and laboratory arrangements within state and local systems. Other selection criteria included jurisdiction size, rural or urban location, and differences in legal processes. Site visits to each of the selected jurisdictions were typically conducted over a 2-day period using semistructured interviews. Basic metrics associated with case processing statistics were also collected. Overall, a total of 38 agencies and 60 respondents were interviewed. The findings from this study demonstrate that jurisdictions vary considerably in terms of how they process and analyze controlled substance evidence. Laboratory drug analysis results were not often used (or required) as part of the charging process; in many jurisdictions the charging decisions were tied to the field test result and not to the presence of a confirmatory analysis result. In only one jurisdiction did the prosecutor require that the confirmatory analysis be conducted before the grand jury process (and before any plea negotiation discussions). However, although laboratory analysis was not required for plea negotiations in most sites, some still submitted all drug evidence directly to the laboratory regardless of whether it would ultimately be needed. In terms of barriers and challenges identified, from a laboratory perspective, there is an acute need for more uniform procedures and processes for submitting and analyzing drug evidence, including prioritization based on factors such as case seriousness. From a law enforcement perspective, the findings suggest that more systematic policies and resources need to be in place for evidence retention and storage. Improved communication was identified as an area of need by all the sites; however, some sites had more effective crossagency communication than others. A key for improving coordination was the presence of effective laboratory submission guidelines. In three jurisdictions, the implementation of a case submission policy was attributed to significant reductions in both the number of controlled substance cases pending analysis and the time to turn around cases. Case tracking systems that promote information sharing and monitoring across the different stages of the process were also highly effective. For example, a limited number of sites reported that prosecutors proactively provided information on cases resolved either by plea bargaining or dismissal — cases that, study participants estimated, represented 50–75% of the drug case “backlog.” Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2010. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233830.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/233830.pdf Shelf Number: 121187 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDrug OffensesEvidenceForensicsPlea BargainingProsecutionProsecutorial Discretion |
Author: Metaal, Pien Title: Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America Summary: A comparative study on the impact of drug policies on the prison systems of eight Latin American countries – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay – reveals that drug laws have contributed to the prison crises these countries are experiencing. The study Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America, published by the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), found that the persons who are incarcerated for drug offenses tend to be individuals caught with small amounts of drugs, often users, as well as street-level dealers. The drug laws impose penalties disproportionate to many of the drug offenses committed, do not give sufficient consideration to the use of alternative sanctions, and promote the excessive use of preventive detention. The weight of the law falls on the most vulnerable individuals, overcrowding the prisons, but allowing drug trafficking to flourish. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America; Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2011. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 8, 2011 at: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/Systems_Overload/TNI-Systems_Overload-def.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Central America URL: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/Systems_Overload/TNI-Systems_Overload-def.pdf Shelf Number: 121288 Keywords: Drug Control Policy (Latin America)Drug OffensesDrug TraffickingDrugsPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Corsaro, Nicholas Title: The Peoria Pulling Levers Drug Market Intervention: A Review of Program Process, Changes in Perception, and Crime Impact Summary: The Peoria Drug Market Intervention (DMI) program was intended to alleviate the disproportionately high crime rates found within a high-risk, disadvantaged, and chronically violent geographic area. Officials within the city decided to implement a focused deterrence strategy that relied upon the use of target identification, investigation, and arrest sweeps followed with an offender notification session that occurred within the target neighborhood. At the core of the strategy was the enhanced prosecution of identified offenders combined with an attempt to bridge partnerships between local law enforcement and residents of the target area. Increased prosecution was designed to incapacitate chronic and violent offenders as well as to communicate a credible deterrent threat to potential replacement law violators. The public meeting (i.e., notification session) was used to publicize the increased risk of sanctions that potential replacement offenders would face if the drug markets re-emerged. This study used a variety of methodological and analytical approaches to examine the following: • The fidelity of program implementation through the use of a detailed process assessment. • The change in officially reported violent, property, and drug related offenses as well as calls for police service trends by relying upon interrupted time series analyses. • Peoria residents’ perceptions of crime after the implementation of the strategy, awareness of the DMI program, and changes in police-community partnerships through the use of phone surveys that captured information from residents living in the target area, a control area, and the remainder of Peoria (for comparison purposes). • The use of in-depth resident interviews to capture detailed information regarding the dynamics of neighborhood conditions, drug markets, and perceived police activity. A synthesis of study results indicated that Peoria police and public officials were consistent with the fidelity of the focused deterrence framework throughout the duration of the initiative. Study results clearly indicated, however, that crime and calls for service within the target area remained relatively stable between pre- and post-intervention periods. In addition, the vast majority of target area residents that were interviewed appeared somewhat unfamiliar with the tenets and purpose of the intervention program, indicating a shortfall in the intended police-community partnership. In-depth resident interviews suggested that residents were seriously concerned with replacement offending, displacement, retaliation, and neighborhood stigmatization if they cooperated with police. We drew upon research from organizational and social disorganization theories to highlight the key themes, implications, and potential limitations of the Peoria focused deterrence strategy. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2011. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2011 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/PeoriaPullingLeversDrugMarketIntervention_Report_March_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/public/pdf/ResearchReports/PeoriaPullingLeversDrugMarketIntervention_Report_March_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121307 Keywords: Drug EnforcementDrug MarketsDrug OffensesFocused Deterrence (Illinois)Neighborhoods and CrimePolice-Community PartnershipsProsecutionPulling Levers Strategy |
Author: Uda, Terry Title: Drug and Alcohol Related Offenses and Arrests 2005-2009 Summary: Thie report addresses the numbers of alcohol and drug related offense and arrests between 2005 through 2009. The first section of the report gives an overall summary of drug and alcohol arrests. The report then presents arrestee demographic information; including race, ethnicity, gender and age. Also addressed are drug seizures and incidents that involved an offender or offenders suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol. The report concludes with a comparison of Idaho counties by alcohol arrests, drug arrests and drug seizures. Details: Meridian, ID: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 121684 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseAlcohol Related Crime, DisorderArrest and ApprehensionDrug Offenders (Idaho)Drug Offenses |
Author: Harris, Genevieve Title: Conviction by Numbers: Threshold Quantities for Drug Policy Summary: Threshold quantities (TQs) for drug law and policy are being experimented with across many jurisdictions. States seem attracted to their apparent simplicity and use them to determine, for example, whether: a possession or supply offence is made out (e.g. Greece); a matter should be diverted away from the criminal justice system (e.g. Portugal); or a case should fall within a certain sentencing range (e.g. UK). Looking at examples from the EU and beyond, however, it is becoming clear that there are no ‘magic numbers’ in drug policy and that this tool brings its own complications and pit-falls. This briefing will therefore seek to provide an overview of the current discussion around TQs and will explore the mechanism of TQs including their benefits and drawbacks as a policy and legal tool. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2011. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 14: Accessed July 11, 2011 at: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/dlr14.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/dlr14.pdf Shelf Number: 122022 Keywords: Drug Abuse PolicyDrug ControlDrug OffensesDrug PolicyDrug Reform |
Author: Idaho State Police. Statistical Analysis Center Title: The Relationship Between Substance Abuse and Crime in Idaho: Estimating the Need for Treatment Alternatives Summary: The relationship between drug abuse and crime is complex. Not all individuals who use drugs become addicted, nor do they commit violent crime. Social and economic concerns, such as crime, illness, premature death, and significant loss in productivity are all affected by alcohol and drug abuse. To understand the relationship between drug abuse and crime, this report will emphasize current research as well as drug trends occurring within Idaho. First, current research regarding reasons for drug addiction and the relationship between drugs and crime will be explored. Second, substance abuse trends within Idaho’s population from various surveys will be discussed. Third, an analysis of data coming from the criminal justice system including information from adult and juvenile arrests, incarceration, drug courts, traffic crashes, numbers involved in treatment, and mortality. A final synopsis concerning what this means for Idaho will also be addressed. Details: Meridian, ID: Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, 2010. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2011 at: http://www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/documents/drugsandcrime.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/documents/drugsandcrime.pdf Shelf Number: 122935 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and Crime (Idaho)Drug OffendersDrug OffensesSubstance Abuse |
Author: Hicarova, Tatiana Title: Summary Final Report Project to Evaluate Selected Drug-Possession Provisions of Act No. 300/2005 – Criminal Code of the Slovak Republic Summary: The project to evaluate the application of selected illegal drug possession provisions of Act No. 300/2005 – the Criminal Code – is the first project of its kind in Slovakia, evaluating the impact of relevant illegal drug possession provisions of the Act, and examining the trends in illegal drug use and punishment imposed in cases of their possession. The project was initiated by the Open Society Foundation Slovakia and was carried out in the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 by the research team cooperating with academic institutions and the Slovak National Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction with the assistance of key departments of the Government of the Slovak Republic. The launch date of the project (January 1, 2006) corresponded with the effective date of the new Criminal Code of the Slovak Republic (“Criminal Code”). As a result of fundamental changes in the legislative framework governing possession of illegal drugs, the Foundation believed it was significant to find out to what extent the legislative intent presented in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill has been accomplished (a clear differentiation between users of illegal drugs and drug traffickers/dealers, application of alternative forms of punishment in cases of illeg al drug possession for personal use) through the only criterion specified in the Criminal Code – the quantity of illegal drug. The project sought to compare the legislative intent manifested in the new legislation with the actual application, in judicial practice, of the relevant illegal drug possession statutory provisions. For this reason, we examined the application of § 171 (possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for personal use) and § 172 (1) (d), any illegal drug possession. The project combines qualitative and quantitative methods currently considered the most efficient research strategy in similarly designed studies. We pursued the implementation of these fundamental research goals in three formally and structurally separate, but closely interconnected, sub-studies to produce one inseparable whole. Two sub-studies (1 and 2) used qualitative research methods consisting of semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The third, quantitative sub-study combined secondary analyses of the existing public health care and epidemiological statistical results with full meta-analyses of data sources of the existing data sets (population studies, statistical information of the Police Corps Presidium, the Forensic Expertise Institution of the Police Corps Presidium, the Public Prosecutor General’s Office of the Slovak Republic and the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic) during a period of approximately ten years. Details: Bratislava, Slovak Republic: Open Society Foundation, 2010. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed September 28, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/drugpolicy/articles_publications/publications/slovak-drug-possession-report-20110301/evaluation-drug-paragraphs-20110308.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Slovakia URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/drugpolicy/articles_publications/publications/slovak-drug-possession-report-20110301/evaluation-drug-paragraphs-20110308.pdf Shelf Number: 122939 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (Slovak Republic)Drug OffendersDrug OffensesDrug Policy |
Author: South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs Title: High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Five Year Overview of Indicators of Illegal Drug Activity in South Carolina Summary: High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Five Year Overview of Indicators of Illegal Drug Activity in South Carolina is the first in what is intended to be a series of ongoing reports, designed to provide basic information about illicit drug activity over a five year period. The bulk of the information presented in the tables, graphs and charts in this publication is based on incident reports submitted to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) by state and local law enforcement agencies. These reports are edited and reviewed, corrected as needed and compiled to form the basis of the information presented in this report. It is important to note that the information in this report is only as complete and accurate as the information provided to local law enforcement and subsequently submitted to SLED. The nature of illegal drug activity is such that it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure its occurrence with any level of precision. Consumers, suppliers, producers and others involved in illegal drug activity take great pains to conceal their actions, and unlike crimes which involve an individual victim, none of those involved in the crime have any reason to report it. In order to provide a broader and more comprehensive perspective, data from the South Carolina Department of Corrections and the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services are also included, as are data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. This report seeks to provide information concerning the scope and nature of illegal drug activity at the state level; however it also seeks to provide detailed information concerning short term trends and offender profiles at the county level. Details: Blythewood, SC: South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, 2011. 311p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2011 at: http://www.scdps.org/ojp/stats/IllegalDrugs/Report%20v14.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.scdps.org/ojp/stats/IllegalDrugs/Report%20v14.pdf Shelf Number: 122954 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (South Carolina)Drug OffendersDrug OffensesDrugs and CrimeIllegal Drugs |
Author: Uda, Terry Title: Drug and Alcohol Related Offenses and Arrests: 2005-2009 Summary: This report provides information on Idaho alcohol and drug arrests for years 2005 through 2009. The data for this report was obtained from the Idaho Incident Based Reporting System. The first section of the report gives an overall summary of drug and alcohol arrests. The report then presents arrestee demographic information: including race, ethnicity, gender and age. Also addressed are drug seizures and incidents that involved an offender or offenders suspected of using drugs and/or alcohol. The report concludes with a comparison of Idaho counties by alcohol arrest, drug arrests and drug seizures. Details: Meridian, ID: Idaho State Police, Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2011 at: http://www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/documents/DrugTrend0509_000.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.isp.idaho.gov/pgr/Research/documents/DrugTrend0509_000.pdf Shelf Number: 122955 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder (Idaho)ArrestsDrug OffendersDrug OffensesDrugs and Crime |
Author: Yeh, Brian T. Title: Drug Offenses: Maximum Fines and Terms of Imprisonment for Violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and Related Laws Summary: This is a chart of the maximum fines and terms of imprisonment that may be imposed as a consequence of conviction for violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and other drug supply and drug demand related laws. It lists the penalties for: heroin, cocaine, crack, PCP, LSD, marihuana (marijuana), amphetamine, methamphetamine, listed (precursor) chemicals, paraphernalia, date rape drugs, rave drugs, designer drugs, ecstasy, drug kingpins, as well as the other substances including narcotics and opiates assigned to Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV, and Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (Title II and Title III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act). Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: RL30722: Accessed January 12, 2012 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30722.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30722.pdf Shelf Number: 123561 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug OffensesDrug SmugglingDrug TraffickingFinesImprisonmentPunishment |
Author: Lai, Gloria Title: Drugs, Crime and Punishment: Proportionality of Sentencing for Drug Offences Summary: Proportionality is one of the key principles of the rule of law aiming to protect people from cruel or inhumane treatment. The principle has been established in international and regional human rights agreements and many countries have adopted reflections of it in their constitution or penal code. Its application to drug-related offences is firstly the responsibility of the legislators, in defining the level of penalisation of certain behaviours. The level of penalisation should be determined according to the severity of damage that a certain behaviour causes to others or to society. Download the briefing (PDF) In the second instance, the courts and judges have to apply the principle of proportionality in defining the appropriate punishment for a particular case; and finally, proportionality also plays a role in the execution of this punishment. This briefing paper looks at specific criteria of proportionality developed in the context of drug control and describes a number of recent attempts to recalibrate the often grossly disproportionate nature of current drug laws and their enforcement around the world. The core requirement of proportionality is that an individual’s rights and freedoms may only be limited to the extent that it is appropriate and necessary for achieving a legitimate aim. Such standards further require that of the range of available options for restricting an individual’s rights and freedoms in order to achieve a legitimate aim, the option that is least intrusive to fundamental rights should be adopted. In the context of drug offences, a legitimate aim of punishment should correspond with the basic objective of the UN drug control conventions: to improve the health and welfare of mankind. As a result, a proportionate sentence for a drug offence should be determined in accordance with the potential harm that a controlled substance may cause to the health and welfare of a community. The principle of proportionality is understood in international law as an essential means for safeguarding fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, its application has often been limited to scaling the severity of punishment without questioning in principle the need to inflict a punishment at all – a problematic limitation, especially in the context of the contemporary drug policy debate where punishment is no longer assumed to be a necessary response for all drug-related activities. Applying the principle of proportionality to drug control should transcend any predisposition towards punishment per se. The trend towards decriminalisation of possession for personal use is a clear example that abstaining from punishment may well be the most appropriate outcome of a proportionality check of drug laws and sentencing practices for certain drug-related activities. RECOMMENDATIONS • Governments should review their laws, sentencing guidelines and practices for drug offences to evaluate their compliance with existing standards of proportionality. • A proportionality check should consider as an option that activities relating to certain acts or substances may be dealt with outside the realm of criminal law. For example, the possession, purchase or cultivation of drugs for personal use should not constitute offences. • Proportionate sentencing frameworks should distinguish between the type of drugs and the scale of the illicit activity, as well as the role and motivation of the offender : serious or organised traffickers; micro-traffickers (low-level dealers or smugglers); people dependent on drugs; and people who use drugs occasionally (or ‘recreationally’). • For drug-related offences committed due to drug dependency or to meet basic economic needs, services such as treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social integration should be offered as more humane, effective and proportionate alternatives to conviction. • For micro-trafficking offences, reduced or provisional sentences, as well as alternatives to imprisonment, should be promoted. The socio-economic circumstances in which an offence was committed and the financial gains of the offender should be considered as important mitigating factors. • Ensuring the consistent application of proportionate sentencing laws and guidelines should include addressing institutional biases against drug offenders, for example amongst judges. • The death penalty for drug offences should be entirely abolished. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2012. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 20: Accessed July 20, 2012 at: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/dlr20.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/dlr20.pdf Shelf Number: 125695 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug OffensesPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Jacobson, Jessica Title: Public Attitudes to the Sentencing of Drug Offences Summary: This study explored public attitudes to the sentencing of a variety of drug offences. The study used a qualitative methodology, involving focus groups conducted in various locations across England and Wales. A short pre-discussion questionnaire was also used to collect basic demographic information on participants and to gauge early views on the sentencing of drug offences. The findings provide valuable insights into public reactions to this issue, although they should not be regarded as necessarily representative of the views of the wider population. The key findings from the research are presented below. • Participants did not generally wish to see custodial penalties for drug possession offences; nor did they necessarily want substantial custodial penalties for small-scale supply and small to medium-scale importation offences. • However, they wanted lengthy custodial sentences for medium to large-scale supply and large-scale importation offences. • They tended to favour sentences that were more punitive than current practice, although this may have been a function of the group dynamics within the focus groups; however, their preferences for medium-scale importation offences were often more lenient. • The punitiveness of attitudes towards serious supply and importation offences reflects a focus on the harm caused by this kind of offending, which was expressed through concerns with: - the distinction between possession offences and other kinds of drug offences; - the impact of different types of drug on users; and - the quantity of the drug(s) involved in a given offence. • Overall, notions of offender culpability played a lesser part than harm in participants’ sentencing preferences; nevertheless offences were deemed to be substantially more serious where: - the offender made a large amount of profit from the offence; - the offender had previous convictions; or - minors were exploited in the offence. • Participants expressed a wide range of views on the relevance of personal factors that may aggravate or mitigate a sentence, and some were resistant to the general principle of taking the offender’s personal circumstances into account in sentencing. Details: London: Sentencing Council, 2011. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Council Research Series 01/11; http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Drugs_research_report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Drugs_research_report.pdf Shelf Number: 126754 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug OffensesPublic Attitudes (U.K.)Public OpinionPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Gallahue, Patrick Title: Death Penalty for Drug Offences Global Overview 2012: Tipping the Scales for Abolition Summary: The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2012 – Tipping the Scales for Abolition is Harm Reduction International’s third annual overview on the status of the death penalty for drug offences worldwide. Tipping the Scales for Abolition documents the 33 countries and territories that retain death penalty for drug offences, including 13 in which the sentence is mandatory. In the past year many hundreds of people have been executed for drug offences in violation of international law in just a small minority of states that continue to operate at the fringes of international consensus. The trend towards abolition is, however, moving back in the right direction. This report details court cases and recent political debates that show an increasing discomfort with the death penalty for drugs, and in particular with mandatory death sentences. Details: London: Harm Reduction International, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 7, 2013, at http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/11/27/HRI_-_2012_Death_Penalty_Report_-_FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/11/27/HRI_-_2012_Death_Penalty_Report_-_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127855 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDrug OffendersDrug Offenses |
Author: Iakobishvili, Eka Title: Inflicting Harm: Judicial corporal punishment for Drug and Alcohol Offences in Selected Countries Summary: Thousands of drug users and alchohol consumers - and people found in possession of small amounts of drugs and alcohol - are subjected to judicially - sanctioned caning, flogging, lashing, or whipping each year. In a landmark study, released by Harm Reduction International in Malaysia recently, it has been found that over forty states apply some type of judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences. The vast majority of these sentences are handed down in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The reports states that state-sanctioned violence such as this is in clear violation of international law. The use of caning, flogging, lashing and whipping is in direct violation of international law that prohibits the use of corporal punishment. UN human rights monitors have expressed their concern number of times about the legislation in various countries that allow law enforcement to inflict these types of cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments. Judicial corporal punishment is practiced in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Brunei, Darussalam, Maldives, Indonesia (Aceh) and Nigeria (northern states) and many more. Details: London: Harm Reduction International, 2011. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2013 at: http://www.ihra.net/files/2011/11/08/IHRA_CorporalPunishmentReport_Web.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.ihra.net/files/2011/11/08/IHRA_CorporalPunishmentReport_Web.pdf Shelf Number: 129208 Keywords: Alcohol OffensesAlcohol Related Crime, DisorderCorporal Punishment (International)Drug OffensesPunishment |
Author: Schleifer, Rebecca Title: Drug Courts in the Americas Summary: Executive Summary Drug courts in the United States are presented as an alternative to incarceration for people arrested for minor drug offenses where drug use is considered an underlying cause of the crime, thus theoretically serving as a tool for reducing prison and jail populations. The United States has nearly thirty years of experience with these courts, which have spread to all fifty states as well as US territories. Many countries around the world have looked to the United States' experience with drug courts as a model to be adopted, and the US government has also promoted them abroad as an alternative to incarceration. Perhaps the most organized efforts to expand this policy are those currently underway in Latin America and the Caribbean. The considerable influence of the United States on the region's drug control policies has certainly encouraged many of its countries to view drug courts as such an alternative, and the growing number of countries implementing them signals that these efforts are moving ahead with full force there. The Canadian government has also worked to support the expansion of drug courts, particularly in the Caribbean, but this report does not focus on the Canadian model. Proponents of drug courts assert that they are cost-effective; they reduce recidivism as well as time spent in detention (prison or jail); and they offer drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration to people whose drug use fuels their criminal activity. To evaluate these assertions, this report reviews key findings from the United States' experience which, despite major institutional, legal, and cultural differences, may usefully inform debates about drug courts, along with other alternatives to incarceration for low-level drug crimes, in other countries - in particular, in countries in Latin America and the Caribbean that have either established, or are looking to establish, drug courts. This report also presents a brief overview of where and how drug courts have been implemented in Latin America and the Caribbean to identify, to the extent possible, the different experiences and challenges faced by those countries. One main difficulty in this exercise is the limited availability of data that would allow strong parallels to be drawn. As is the case with the United States, with rare exceptions, drug courts in Latin America and Caribbean are not independently monitored and evaluated, and most were established relatively recently. Nevertheless, we have found the information available points to fundamental problems with the implementation of drug courts; the findings from the United States experience could, at the very least, offer insight into whether and under what circumstances they provide a more desirable option than incarceration. The US section is based on review of the existing research on drug courts and treatment for substance use disorders and evaluations of drug court efficacy conducted and published by the US government, major research institutions, advocacy organizations, and leading scholars whose work focuses on drug courts specifically or on criminal justice, substance use disorders, drug treatment, and drug policy more broadly. The Latin America and Caribbean sections are based on a review of their available information on drug courts (which is significantly more limited than the vast literature available in the United States), as well as on research on criminal justice, incarceration, drug treatment, and drug policy, responses to requests for information, and interviews. Also reviewed for each country are laws, official documents (including memoranda of understanding, government documents and web pages, judiciary reports, PowerPoint presentations made by authorities, and international organization documents, among others), studies and evaluations (when available), and, in a few cases, news reports. The substantial diversity among drug court models complicates efforts to evaluate their impact on the problems they aim to address, but our review of the existing evidence shows the claim that drug courts provide an alternative to incarceration is debatable. We found that drug courts, as implemented in the United States, are a costly, cumbersome intervention that has limited, if any, impact on reducing incarceration. Indeed, for many participants, they may have the opposite effect by increasing criminal justice supervision and subjecting those who fail to graduate to harsher penalties than they might otherwise have received, thus becoming an adjunct rather than an alternative to incarceration. Moreover, evidence about their effectiveness in reducing cost, recidivism, and time spent in prison is mixed. The financial and human costs to drug court participants are also steep and disproportionately burdensome to the poor and racial minorities. The evidence also does not support drug courts as an appropriate public health intervention. Drug court judges are empowered to make treatment decisions that should be the domain of health care professionals, choosing from limited or counterproductive options that may threaten the health and lives of participants as well as expose confidential information about their health and drug use. One of the main stated objectives of drug courts is to ensure access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment for those who need it. Our review of the available evidence shows, however, that, in practice, many drug court participants do not need treatment; at the same time, treatment may be unavailable to or inappropriate for those who do. Evidence we have found indicates the resort to drug courts may be an appropriate measure for certain offenders - that is, people charged with serious crimes linked to their drug dependence who would otherwise serve prison terms. What is often not considered is that most drug courts do not meet this definition. More important, we must remember that drug dependence treatment is a type of medical care. People who are dependent on drugs have a right, under international human rights law, to relevant health care services that are available, physically and economically accessible without discrimination, gender appropriate, culturally and ethically acceptable, designed to respect confidentiality, scientifically and medically appropriate, and of good quality. By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system, drug courts aggressively insert the penal system into people's private and family lives and into their decisions about their health and medical care, reproducing and perpetuating the criminalization of people who use drugs and those involved in low-level drug-related crimes. As an overall framework through which to think about drug courts, we should not lose sight of the fact that no individuals, regardless of their criminal records, should be punished for their medical conditions, nor should they have to allow courts to make their medical decisions for them or rely on the criminal justice system for access to treatment that could perhaps have prevented their incarceration in the first place. The primary lessons learned from US drug courts that should be considered by other countries in the Americas as they look at this model are the following: Drug courts are not an alternative to incarceration: - Defendants remain in criminal proceedings at every step in the drug court program, risk incarceration, both as a sanction while in the program and for failure to complete it, and, in some cases, spend more time behind bars than they would have had they chosen to pursue criminal justice proceedings instead of drug court. Drug courts may increase the number of people under supervision of the criminal justice system in the following ways: - By requiring them to plead guilty as a condition of getting access to drug court. - By processing discretionary crimes that police might have not enforced had drug court not been an option. - By mediating treatment through the criminal justice system. Drug courts are not a rights-based health intervention: - Drug court judges maintain control over treatment decisions for drug court participants, in some cases ordering treatment that is at odds with accepted medical practice. - Participants who fail drug court risk incarceration and face abrupt interruption of treatment and other health risks attendant to incarceration. - Access to treatment comes at the cost of forfeiting fundamental legal and human rights. Drug courts may perpetuate racial bias in the criminal justice system: - Drug courts point to drug dependence as the factor that puts people at risk of criminal justice involvement, ignoring the racial bias in drug policing and prosecution in the United States that leads African Americans and Latinos into long-term criminal justice supervision at much higher rates than their white counterparts. Further complicating this scenario is the concerted effort to export drug courts as a model that should be adopted by other countries. Despite the evidence from the United States experience cited above, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have embraced drug courts as a promising solution to the over-incarceration problem that plagues the region. This development is problematic not only because governments in the region apparently are not conducting proper investigations before adopting drug courts as a public policy model, but also because the very specific social, economic, and political context of Latin American and Caribbean countries immediately complicates the adoption of public policies designed by other, more developed countries with different legal systems. The lack, for example, of scientifically and medically appropriate treatment options and the reliance on private providers is a serious issue in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where numerous cases of abuse and human rights violations by treatment providers have been documented. Furthermore, health systems do not have enough capacity to provide health and social services to all the people who need them; in these cases, private and religious institutions with scarce knowledge about drug dependence, treatment, and medical standards are used. A reliance on abstinence-based treatment programs and drug testing is also of concern. On the criminal justice side of the issue, many drug courts in the region still focus on simple drug possession as a crime, contributing to the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Research about drug courts in Latin America and the Caribbean also underscores the need for a more rigorous data management system that can provide sufficient information for a comprehensive assessment of their effectiveness in the region. Currently, research is too dependent on anecdotal evidence and not focused on evidence-based analysis. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in Latin America are as follows: - Generally speaking, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Latin American countries studied, and independent evaluations are scarce. - The model is more advanced in three countries (Chile, Mexico, and Costa Rica) and in a pilot phase in four others (Argentina, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Colombia). Ecuador and Peru are also considering whether to establish drug courts. - Most programs in the region were established in 2012 or later, except for the Chilean model, which was implemented in 2004. - Drug courts in Latin America function as specific programs within the legal jurisdictions where they have been established rather than as special courts. They function under the conditional suspension of criminal proceedings mechanism and adopt a pre-plea approach that diverts participants before conviction. - Candidates must meet two basic requirements to enter the programs: they must be prosecuted for an eligible offense, and they must receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent rimes (charges carrying sentences of no more than three to five years in prison) are accepted in the programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - In most programs, participants must be first-time offenders. - In contrast to the US experience, Latin American drug treatment courts graduate few participants. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property, domestic violence, and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses (those in Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, and Panama). - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico, and other countries plan to create such programs. - Much as in the United States, participation in Latin American drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free and sometimes sanction them for positive drug tests. - Most countries clearly lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. This report's main findings about drug treatment courts in the English-speaking Caribbean are as follows: - Much as in Latin America, detailed and current data are lacking in almost all the Caribbean countries studied, and no independent evaluations of drug courts have been done. The information available is mostly from government sources. - The earliest drug court programs in the Caribbean were established in 2001 in Bermuda and Jamaica (making these the oldest programs in the Latin America and Caribbean region), with other countries (the Cayman Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize) establishing drug courts in 2012 or later. - The drug court model is more advanced in three countries (Bermuda, Jamaica, and the Cayman Islands) and in an initial phase in three others (Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Belize). The Bahamas seems to be interested in establishing drug courts. - Drug courts in the Caribbean are not specialized courts as in the United States but, rather, operate as specific programs under local lower (parish/magistrates) courts, as in Latin America. The drug treatment courts in Caribbean countries operate under different legal structures. Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Jamaica have enacted specific legislation, while Barbados, Belize, and Trinidad and Tobago have signed memoranda of understanding with the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). The Canadian government has directly supported the implementation of drug courts in a few Caribbean countries. - The basic requirements for admission to drug court are to be charged with an eligible offense and receive a diagnosis of problematic drug use related to the commission of the crime. - Only people charged with what the local jurisdictions consider to be minor and/or nonviolent crimes are accepted in the programs, with the exception of Jamaica, where people charged with certain more serious crimes may be eligible. Participants must be first-time offenders. - Jamaica is the only country in the English-speaking Caribbean where a guilty plea is not a requirement for admission. - The information available suggests that few participants graduate from Caribbean drug courts. - The drug courts in the region most commonly address crimes against property and drug possession. Based on available information, simple possession is one of the most frequent crimes in drug court programs that include drug offenses. - Most participants in drug court programs are male. - Juvenile courts have been established in Jamaica, and reports indicate the Cayman Islands and Trinidad and Tobago are exploring the possibility of establishing such programs. - Many programs carry harsh penalties as sanctions during the course of treatment. - Participation in Caribbean drug courts typically requires that participants remain drug free, and they rely on drug testing to assess compliance, with sanctions imposed for positive drug tests. - Information about treatment standards and options available is scarce, but our research suggests most countries in the region lack the capacity to provide appropriate treatment to all program participants. Undoubtedly, the creation of alternatives to the criminal justice system for drug-related offenses is urgently needed, and countries should focus on moving away from an excessive reliance on incarceration as a panacea. Nonetheless, a close examination of the United States as a case study does not support the drug court model as the most appropriate solution for governments genuinely focused on addressing this issue, since in some respects it continues to criminalize drug consumption and prioritize a criminal approach to drug dependence over a health approach. Hence, this report presents a series of recommendations that should be seriously considered by countries concerned with mass incarceration and intent on moving away from over-reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. We developed the recommendations with two groups in mind: countries that have not established drug courts or in which they are in early stages, and countries in which drug courts are more established and their continuation is overwhelmingly supported, thus making it difficult (but not impossible) to address the issues raised here. Details: New York, NY: Social Science Research Council, 2018. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 20, 2019 at: https://www.ssrc.org/publications/view/drug-courts-in-the-americas/ Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ssrc-cdn1/crmuploads/new_publication_3/DSD_Drug+Courts_English_online+final.pdf Shelf Number: 154312 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCaribbeanData Management SystemDrug CourtsDrug CrimesDrug OffensesDrug PossessionDrug Treatment CourtsInter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAJail PopulationLatin AmericaPrison PopulationPublic Health InterventionRacial BiasRecidivismSubstance UseSupervisionTreatment |