Você está na página 1de 6

AIIirmative Drug Courts ReIorm SheaIIer/Wright

Region IX

AIIirmative Drug Courts Expansion


Failing to address the root oI the problem has leIt the United States with hundreds oI
thousands oI drug oIIenders stuck in a cycle oI addiction that our criminal justice system has
been unable to break. II America is ever to kick its drug habit we must Iind an alternative to
incarceration Ior drug oIIenders. Consequently, we aIIirm that: The United States Federal
Government should signiIicantly reIorm its criminal justice system.
Today, the aIIirmative will be proposing a weighing mechanism oI net beneIits. In other
words, iI the aIIirmative can prove that the advantages oI the plan will be net beneIicial over the
potential drawbacks, then an aIIirmative ballot is warranted. BeIore we move to our policy
change, we oIIer the Iollowing definitions:
Significant: having or likely to have inIluence or eIIect : important a significant piece oI
legislation~; (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 2011, http.//www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/significant)
#0form: ~to amend or improve by change oI Iorm or removal oI Iaults or abuses (Merriam-
Webster Online Dictionary 2011, http.//www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/reform?show0&t1299637740)
oth d0finitions, tak0n from th0 M0rriam W0-st0r Onlin0 Dictionary 2011.
Criminal 1ustic0 Syst0m: 'According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the criminal justice
system is deIined as the system oI law enIorcement, the bar, the judiciary, corrections, and
probation that is directly involved in the apprehension, prosecution, deIense, sentencing,
incarceration, and supervision oI those suspected oI or charged with criminal oIIenses.
Operationally, the U.S. criminal justice system consists oI three main parts: (1) law enIorcement; (2) adjudication
(courts); and (3) corrections.
0t, is a t0rm you will h0ar throughout this round. Today th0 affirmativ0 is in support
of a program call0d Drug Courts: The National Criminal Justice ReIerence Service stated in
2011 explained this system: Drug courts can be deIined as "special court calendars or
dockets designed to achieve a reduction in recidivism and substance abuse among nonviolent,
substance abusing oIIenders by increasing their likelihood Ior successIul rehabilitation
through early, continuous, and intense judicially supervised treatment; mandatory periodic
drug testing; and the use oI appropriate sanctions and other rehabilitation services"
National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2011.(Administered by the Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice), 'Drug Courts,`
https.//www.ncfrs.gov/spotlight/drugcourts/summary.html

AIIirmative Drug Courts ReIorm SheaIIer/Wright
Region IX

ow l0t`s tak0 a slightly mor0 in d0pth look at what a drug court program do0s -y
giving you an ;er;iew
From th0 sam0 sourc0, on S0pt0m-0r 27 of this y0ar:
Drug court participants undergo long-term treatment and counseling, sanctions,
incentives, and Irequent court appearances. SuccessIul completion oI the treatment program
results in dismissal oI the charges, reduced or set aside sentences, lesser penalties, or a
combination oI these. Most importantly, graduating participants gain the necessary tools to
rebuild their lives.
Because the problem oI drugs and crime is much too broad Ior any single agency to tackle
alone, drug courts rely upon the daily communication and cooperation oI judges, court
personnel, probation, and treatment providers (National Strategy for the Co-funding of Coordinated Drug Court
Systems, National Association oI Drug Court ProIessionals, 1994).
Drug courts vary somewhat Irom one jurisdiction to another in terms oI structure, scope, and target populations, but they all share
three primary goals: (1) to reduce recidivism, (2) to reduce substance abuse among
participants, and (3) to rehabilitate participants.
Now that we have a clear understanding oI these courts, let`s take a look at what is going on
in the status quo in our next observation oI nherency:
The reality is that our country has a massive drug problem. A problem that our government
has been unable to solve Ior many years. This problem has become so widespread in our
criminal justice system that more than 50 oI incarcerated criminals are drug oIIenders. Even
worse, these oIIenders have been stuck in an endless cycle oI addiction and high recidivism.
The encouraging thing is that there is a program to battle this problem. However, our
government is yet to take Iull advantage oI it.
n th0 curr0nt syst0m w0 s00 that 1.2 million individuals ar0 0ligi-l0 for drug courts -ut
una-l0 to gain acc0ss
US Congressman Michael M. Honda affirmed in 2011. July 6, 2011, Michael M. Honda (member of
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies) 'Drug courts
save money, cut crime, serve veterans in need,` The Mercury News,
http.//www.mercurynews.com/milpitas/ci18420867
Drug courts Iocus on high-value oIIenders, those who have the highest need Ior treatment
and wrap-around services, and those who have the highest risk oI Iailing out oI those services
without support and structure. These are the individuals who drain the system oI resources
and perpetuate generational crime and substance abuse. Drug courts serve more than 120,000
such individuals every year, but this is only 10 percent oI the eligible oIIender population.
The Department oI Justice recently identiIied 1.2 million individuals in the criminal justice
system who would be eligible Ior drug court but are unable to gain access because one is
simply not available.

AIIirmative Drug Courts ReIorm SheaIIer/Wright
Region IX

In light oI the reality that millions oI drug oIIenders can`t be treated properly, we propose the
Iollowing !:
Mandat0 1: Capacity will be increased to allow all currently eligible Iederal drug oIIenders to
be diverted into drug courts.
Mandat0 2: Current grants to states will be increased to provide states the capacity to divert
all eligible oIIenders into drug courts.
Funding: As you will see later in this speech, the money gained Irom the passing oI this plan
Iar outweighs the initial cost. However, the initial 13 billion dollars oI Iunding will come Irom
General Federal Revenues.
Enforc0m0nt: U.S. Department oI Justice and the Federal Court System.
The AIIirmative team reserves the right to clariIy the plan in Iuture speeches.
This -rings us to our 2 points of ad;ocacy:
First, is that Drug Courts support is a must
Daphne Baille, the communications director Ior Treatment Alternatives Ior SaIe Communities
stated in 2010 that. Robert Weiner (former spokesman for the White House National Drug Policy Office, the
House Government Operations Committee, and the House Narcotics Committee) and Daphne Baille
(communications director for Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), a Chicago-based fustice and
health services advocacy group. She has been with TASC 22 years) 'Prison Drug Treatment Would Reverse
Overcrowding and Reduce Crime, Recidivism, Budgets,` Chicago-Sun Tribune, October 16, 2010,
http.//www.opednews.com/articles/PRISON-DRUG-TREATMENT-WOUL-by-Robert-Weiner-101017-451.html
Former U.S. Drug Czar Barry McCaIIrey calls support Ior drug courts everywhere in
America "a no-brainer." We pay $25,000 a year to incarcerate someone; treatment costs a Iew
thousand Ior an entire year, and many can stop aIter a Iew months as long as they have monitored
counseling in prison and when they leave.
Our n0t point of advocacy d0als with Mandat0 2. What w0 s00 is in th0 past, congr0ss
has succ0ssfully us0d grants for drug courts.
Professor Michael M. OHear affirms that.. (Assistant Professor at Marquette University Law School
with a J.D. from Yale Law School) 'Federalism and Drug Control,` 57 Janderbilt Law Review 783, 814-15
(2004).
In addition to the Byrne Program, Congress and the Department oI Justice have also
adopted more narrowly targeted measures in order to induce state and local compliance with
the Iederal drug control agenda. For instance, states now lose 10 percent oI their Iederal highway Iunds iI
they do not enact and enIorce a law providing Ior the suspension or revocation oI the drivers' licenses oI
convicted drug oIIenders. Likewise, Iederal Iunds have been conditioned on state adoption oI comprehensive
drug testing within the state's criminal justice system. Also, as discussed in more detail below, Congress has
successIully used grants to promote the development oI drug courts by state and local judicial
oIIicials.
AIIirmative Drug Courts ReIorm SheaIIer/Wright
Region IX

&pon passing of th0 affirmativ0 t0ams plan, w0 gain th0 following Advantag0s:

d;antage 1) Reduced Recidi;ism
In 2010, Ryan King and Jill Pasquarella (policy analysts Ior the Sentencing Project)
summarized the results oI over 60 studies perIormed by organizations such as, the
Government accountability oIIice, and Washington State Institute Ior Public Policy, by
stating..
Ryan King -holds a B.A. in Anthropology, an M.A. in Criminal Justice, and an M.S. in Justice, Law, & Society
from American University. He has been a policy analyst for over 10 years. Jill Pasquarella Research assistant
for the Sentencing Profect. The Sentencing Profect, 2010. 'Drug Courts, A Review of the Evidence`
http.//www.sentencingprofect.org/doc/dpdrugcourts.pdf
Graduates oI drug courts are, according to current evaluations, less likely to be rearrested
than persons processed through traditional court mechanics. Findings Irom drug court
evaluations show that participation in drug courts results in Iewer rearrests and reconvictions,
or longer periods between arrests.

Ov0r th0 y0ars, num0rous studi0s hav0 -00n conduct0d on this issu0. Although r0sults
diff0r slightly, th0 0vid0nc0 shows cl0arly that drug courts r0duc0 r0cidivism.
Dr. Douglas B. Marlowe PhD, an Adfunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University
of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and former Director of the Division of Law & Ethics
Research at the Treatment Research Institute summari:ed these studies in 2010. (J.D., PhD, and
Adfunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and former
Director of the Division of Law & Ethics Research at the Treatment Research Institute) December 2010,
'Research Update on Adult Drug Courts,` National Association of Drug Court Professionals,
http.//www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Research20Update20on20Adult20Drug20Courts20-
20NADCP1.pdf
More research has been published on the eIIects oI adult Drug Courts than virtually all
other criminal justice programs combined. By 2006, the scientiIic community had concluded
beyond a reasonable doubt Irom advanced statistical procedures called meta-analyses1 that
Drug Courts reduce criminal recidivism, typically measured by Iewer re-arrests Ior new
oIIenses and technical violations. Table I summarizes the results oI Iive independent meta-
analyses all reporting superior eIIects Ior Drug Courts over randomized or matched
comparison samples oI drug oIIenders who were on probation or undergoing traditional
criminal case processing. In each analysis, the results revealed that Drug Courts signiIicantly
reduced re-arrest or reconviction rates by an average oI approximately 8 to 26 percent, with
the average oI the averages reIlecting approximately a 10 to 15 percent reduction in
recidivism.

AIIirmative Drug Courts ReIorm SheaIIer/Wright
Region IX

Th0s0 num-0rs of succ0ss dir0ctly aff0ct all 0v0n us h0r0 in this d0-at0 room today. Wh0n
r0cidivism rat0s d0clin0, pu-lic saf0ty incr0as0s.
Nancy La Jigne Director, Justice Policy Center, The Urban Institute, stated in September 2010,
'REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECOND CHANCE ACT`, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIJES, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, September 29,
2010 http.//fudiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/111th/111-15458479.PDF [Ethos]
I believe all oI us in this room are here Ior the same reason. It is because we care about public saIety. And
I think that perhaps the biggest way to achieving increased public saIety is by Iocusing on the men
and women who are leaving prison and returning to their communities. They have many needs.
They have many issues. So the goal here is to give them the support and the services they need
so that they can successIully reintegrate. II they don`t, they end up committing new crimes,
creating new victimizations, and costing us more money because they ultimately end up back
behind bars. We know that that is a very expensive alternative.

Giv0n th0 fact that r0cidivism is a v0ry 0p0nsiv0 alt0rnativ0, this -rings us to our
s0cond advantag0
d;antage 2) Costs Cut
0caus0 th0 pric0 of drug courts is far l0ss than imprisonm0nt, 0panding drug courts
r0aps millions in -0n0fits
John K. Roman, the Senior Research Associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute
stated in July 2010, Testimony of John K. Roman before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives,
http.//www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901371-drug-courts-pre-trial-diversion.pdf
A 2008 Urban Institute study examined whether expanding drug courts to more drug-
involved oIIenders is cost-beneIicial.1 While we Iound that there are about 1.5 million drug-involved
arrestees entering the court system annually, only 55,000 are treated in drug courts. Again, that is less than 4
percent oI all drug-involved arrestees and less than 1 percent oI all arrestees. We estimate the United States
spends slightly more than halI a billion dollars to treat drug-court clients each year. This investment yields more
than $1 billion in annual savings, which is more than $2 in beneIits Ior every $1 in costs. We then tested what
the costs would be iI those oIIenders commonly excluded Irom drug court were allowed in drug court. We Iound
that in every category but one the beneIits exceeded the additional costs oI treatment. Expanding drug court
to all 1.5 million drug-involved oIIenders would be expensive, with a price tag exceeding $13
billion annually, but would return more than $40 billion in beneIits.
AIIirmative Drug Courts ReIorm SheaIIer/Wright
Region IX


Lik0wis0, Dr. Douglas Marlow0 who is th0 form0r Dir0ctor of th0 Division of Law #0s0arch
at th0 Tr0atm0nt #0s0arch nstitut0 affirms that Drug Courts ar0 cost 0ff0ctiv0, and a
221 r0turn in inv0stm0nt.
Dr. Douglas B. Marlowe 2010. (J.D., PhD, and Adfunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of
Pennsylvania School of Medicine and former Director of the Division of Law & Ethics Research at the
Treatment Research Institute) December 2010, 'Research Update on Adult Drug Courts,` National Association
of Drug Court Professionals,
http.//www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/Research20Update20on20Adult20Drug20Courts20-
20NADCP1.pdf
In line with their positive eIIects on crime reduction, Drug Courts have also proven
highly cost-eIIective. A recent cost-related meta-analysis concluded that Drug Courts produce
an average oI $2.21 in direct beneIits to the criminal justice system Ior every $1.00 invested
a 221 return on investment. When Drug Courts targeted their services to the more serious, higher-
risk oIIenders, the average return on investment was determined to be even higher: $3.36 Ior every $1.00
invested.
Former U.S. Drug Czar, Barry McCaIIrey calls support Ior drug courts a No brainer Ior a
reason. II a policy assists in the seemingly endless cycle oI addiction and recidivism, and
saves American taxpayers money, then it only makes sense that we expand it.

Você também pode gostar