NCJ Number
195267
Journal
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: October-December 2001 Pages: 355-367
Date Published
2001
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article recounts a panel on judicial and corrections perspectives on therapeutic jurisprudence and California's Proposition 36 presented at a conference on June 9, 2001.
Abstract
Proposition 36 mandates that drug offenders have the option for drug treatment instead of incarceration. The individuals who participated in the panel on judicial and corrections perspectives on therapeutic jurisprudence and Proposition 36 were innovators who had implemented programs that created sweeping changes in the criminal justice systems in California and Arizona. As judges and psychologists, they have developed approaches to the treatment of substance abuse problems reflective of their belief that criminal justice interventions alone cannot lead to recovery among addicted individuals. One panel member described the process of innovation in establishing a therapeutic juvenile dependency court that sought to integrate the mission of child protection with provision of therapeutic treatment and recovery services to parents. Another panel member discussed the development and current functioning of drug courts in California as well as how Proposition 36 compares and contrasts with the drug court model. Other innovative alternatives to incarceration in place in San Francisco courts were also described. A panel member described the implementation and functioning, as well as the goals and objectives, of Arizona's Proposition 200, a treatment-oriented initiative similar to California's Proposition 36. A forensic psychologist discussed his perspective on the treatment of offenders with dual disorders and described a model program of dual-diagnosis treatment in the California Department of Corrections.