NCJ Number
175005
Journal
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Dated: August 1997 Pages: 103-120
Date Published
1997
Length
18 pages
Annotation
Based primarily on a review of American evidence, this article discusses the ethical justification for and the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol and heroin dependence provided under legal coercion.
Abstract
The study focuses on legally coerced treatment for drunk- driving offenders and heroin-dependent property offenders. It outlines the various arguments for providing such treatment under legal coercion. These include the overrepresentation of alcohol and drug dependent persons in prison populations; the contributory causal role of alcohol and other drug problems in the offenses that lead to imprisonment; the high rates of relapse to drug use and criminal involvement after incarceration; the desirability of keeping injecting heroin users out of prisons as a way of reducing the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis; and the putatively greater cost-effectiveness of treatment compared with incarceration. The ethical objections to legally coerced drug treatment are also discussed. The primary objection is that it intrudes upon a person's right to choose or deny medical treatment. A consensus view on treatment under coercion was reached by the World Health Organization in 1986. This group suggested that compulsory treatment is legally and ethically justified only if the rights of the individuals are protected by due process and if effective and humane treatment is provided. American evidence suggests that treatment for heroin and other illicit drug dependence, such as methadone maintenance, therapeutic communities, and drug-free counseling benefits those who receive it. The evidence, primarily from American studies, gives qualified support for some forms of legally coerced drug treatment, provided that these programs are well resourced, carefully implemented, and monitored to ensure they provide a humane and effective alternative to imprisonment. Expectations about what these programs can achieve must also be realistic. 71 references