Introduction
Time has seen radical changes in the court system. Earlier it was all about conviction for a given crime. Victims of addiction were just apprehended, put behind bars where it would do worse to them as they would silently suffer withdrawal (Chrobo, 348). However, this model that describes sovereign power has changed and paved way for disciplinary power, a model characterized by set procedures and curriculum under strict disciplinary measures. The Drug Treatment Courts are one such example.
Drug treatment courts are mandated to deal with persons convicted of non-violent crimes in which the eventuality would be a custodial sentence (Foucalt, 5). They form a strict disciplined curriculum that the convicts have to undergo. The first assessment aims at proving that the accused have at least three months addiction to drugs, heroin, crystal methamphetamine or cocaine. In addition, potentials are evaluated for violent histories or possible mental issues and how well motivated they are to stick to the treatment program. The successful candidates are taken through various levels of supervision marked by regular court appearances and participation in the treatment. The courts offer special bails to the persons. They sign a waiver agreeing to the fact that justice will be delayed and at the same time quite a number of rights and protection. It entails a urine screen program and discussing their therapeutic experiences in open courts. The courts use a system of sanctions and rewards. Clients are rewarded for continued commitment and progress in treatment. Rewards include, eased bail restrictions, decreased court appearances among others.
Actors are positioned in the courtroom such that there is a liaison from the treatment team in the witness box and others moving back and forth across the bar. It is not odd, in fact in addition therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists are called in the courtroom quite often for testimonial, assessment or support reasons. On quite many occasions, the judge relies on clinical knowledge to deliver their verdict. A good example is that of Toronto court, where the judge refuses to accept that a man on methadone was a victim of crack craving given that methadone should work to stop the cravings (Chrobo, 350). Judges also engage not only in clinical medical assessments, but also engage in psychological treatment knowledge in dealing with clients. This medical knowledge serves to help the judges deliver justified legal actions against clients.
Crowns and duty counsel also make use of clinical knowledge. It applies mostly when a client faces expulsion from the program. It may be fuelled by several reasons such as, lying to the judge, breaching bail terms dealing drugs to other clients or failure to show motivation in the program (Foucalt, 18). Though rare, when eviction happens, it is based on lack of motivation in the program. A good example is in Toronto court where the eviction of a client is seen as a clinical best practice for a therapeutic non-responsive client rather than a punitive measure. The crown uses evidence that the client has shown poor quality in the recovery process, on the other hand, the counsel argues that the client can complete her recovery and should be able to remain in the program as all she needs is time to detox.
The treatment team plays a supportive role in the courtroom, by offering comments to the judge on the client’s progress and on-spot counsel for those in crisis during proceedings. However, the treatment team also use legal knowledge and participate in legal actions as well. They are set in a manner that they can make recommendations and in some cases legal decisions concerning their clients. It is often common for treatment members to advise the court on legal sanctions against their clients.
In commenting of restriction in the Drug Treatment issue, it is quite an indirect subject where depends with what angle we approach the subject. Is it in terms of time away from the public, curtailment of one’s freedom or do we compromise for the sake of curing a victim of drugs? Looking at it from time and rights of an individual, the Drug Treatment Courts are no better than the traditional courts. First the clients are needed to sign a waiver that restricts them of their right to plead not guilty, the right to a swift and determinate sentence (which on usual occasions would mean less custody time) and the right to confidentiality. By agreeing to undergo the urine screen, the clients give up protection against unreasonable search and seizure (Chrobo, 357). However, looking at the treatments courts from this basis, would be unfair not to say undermine their sole purpose and drive of saving addicts.
Conclusion
Consequently, the importance of Drug Treatment Courts is enshrined in the broader goal of any courts of curing drug addiction. It would be a merry day for any community to be drug-free. And so both the tradition and drug treatment courts share a common goal, to stop drug only that while the tradition court does it in the short-term, the drug treatment provides a long-term solution to the drug menace.
Works Cited:
Chrobo, A.Sentencing Drug Addicted Offenders and the Toronto Drug Treatment Court. Criminal law Quarterly. (2002) 45:346-362
Foucalt, M. The Body of the condemned in Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books. (1977) 3-31.
