Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:51 am
Time: 11:51 am
Results for intermediate punishments (pennsylvania)
1 results foundAuthor: Kramer, John H. Title: Evaluation of RIP D&A Treatment Summary: From 1980 to 2005 Pennsylvania state prison population grew by 400%. Although is not possible to assess the extent to which drug addiction was the driving force for this tremendous increase but we do know that offenders incarcerated in state prison for drug offenses increased 2354% during this time frame and drug offenders accounted for 23.9% of the growth. Offenders convicted of drug offenses are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the role of drug abuse and crime. Support of drug abuse increases theft offenses, burglaries, robberies and other offenses as well. Beyond driving our investment in prison expansion, addiction exerts tremendous costs in terms of lost human resources, and increased health care costs. The growth in prison populations reflect public policy initiatives in the 1980's and 1999's such as the passage of mandatory minimums as our primary focus in stemming the drug abuse problem. Despite significant attempts to deter drug use though harsh penalties and attempts to limit the flow of drugs, drug use seems to have been minimally effected. A1s one Pennsylvania judge reflected to one of the authors, "Drug use is a supply and demand problem, and the more I attempt to change this with tough sentences the more convinced I am that we the way to deal with the drug problem is to reduce the demand through prevention and treatment." This comment joins with a growing refrain from criminal justice experts who see drug abuse as generally impermeable to sanctions and promising results through prevention and treatment. Pennsylvania recognized the need for community based treatment and drug treatment in 1990 by passing legislation expanding sentencing authority for judges to include Intermediate Punishment (IP) (Act 193 of 1990) and building into IP sanctions a strong drug treatment component. Importantly, Pennsylvania supported this with funding to counties for drug and alcohol treatment. The research reported here studies whether these important policy steps were effective at reducing recidivism among drug dependent offenders. Details: State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2006. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2011 at: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/special-reports/evaluation-of-restrictive-intermediate-punishment-drug-and-alcohol-treatment-2006/SpecRptRIPDA2006.pdf#navpanes=0 Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/special-reports/evaluation-of-restrictive-intermediate-punishment-drug-and-alcohol-treatment-2006/SpecRptRIPDA2006.pdf#navpanes=0 Shelf Number: 120715 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersIntermediate Punishments (Pennsylvania)RehabilitationSentencing |