Court-Ordered Drug Treatment Programs as an Alternative to Jail Time
By Ruby Knoebel ’28
Introduction
The widespread issue of drug use in the United States is not only claiming countless lives across the nation but also straining the country's criminal justice system. The prevailing “prosecute and punish” approach to handling drug crime is ineffective for addressing these problems. The current punishments for drug-related crimes are fines and incarceration — both of which serve only to punish rather than rehabilitate drug addicts. As a consequence of such a system, the United States has high rates of recidivism, which refers to when a convicted criminal is re-arrested. Additionally, the system’s focus on punishment has resulted in the overpopulation of prisons, forcing American legislators and judges to find alternatives to incarceration for drug users.
Drug treatment programs are effective options for this current crisis because they reduce both recidivism and incarceration rates by giving defendants who complete the programs a reduction or dismissal of their charges. In a study conducted in 2000, researchers at Stanford University, as well as Paul Dynia, from the New York City Human Resources Administration, and Hung-En Sung, from the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, found that treatment programs result in definitive reductions in recidivism (1). Louisiana Judge Erin Leigh Waddell Garrett, who began using drug treatment programs as a pre-trial diversion method, also argues that drug treatment programs set addicts up for more success when they reenter society by helping them create new habits and lifestyles.
Judges and legislators have a responsibility to protect their constituents, including those who struggle with drug addiction. It is in the interest of everyone for addicts to receive the treatment that they need. Thus, court-ordered drug treatment programs should be used as alternatives to incarceration in the United States because they reduce recidivism rates, save the lives of addicts, and promote public safety.
Background
In 1971, President Nixon declared illicit drug use as the nation’s “public enemy number one” and ten years later in 1981, President Reagan launched the War on Drugs (2). In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created mandatory sentence minimums for drug-related crimes, largely in response to the crack cocaine epidemic that fueled the War on Drugs (3). As the use of crack cocaine increased rapidly, so did drug-related deaths and crimes (4). The response was mass incarceration. Prior to Regan’s term, only 50,000 people in the US were incarcerated for drug-related crimes, but in 1997, eight years after Reagan’s presidency ended, there were 400,000 Americans incarcerated for illicit drug use (5). Yale Law School Professor Steven Duke wrote to the Yale Undergraduate Law Journal that “the effects [of the War on Drugs] are similar to those from alcohol Prohibition: the creation of criminal organizations; corruption in government; encouraging the distribution of the most powerful, addictive drugs; the criminalization of drug users, including addicts.” This approach, he says, even discourages addicts from seeking treatment.
The Prison Policy Initiative, a non-profit organization that conducts research about mass criminalization, shows the ineffectiveness of this approach, revealing that “at least one in four people who go to jail will be arrested again within the same year — often those dealing with poverty, mental illness, and substance-use disorders, whose problems only worsen with incarceration (6).” By incarcerating people for drug-related crimes, prison populations are outgrowing their capacities. This has further necessitated changes in the way that the United States responds to drug crimes, as it is no longer feasible for prisons to house non-violent drug possessors.
Drug Treatment Programs as an Alternative to Jail Time
The country’s first residential drug treatment program in which prosecutors tracked defendants’ progress was created in 1990 in Brooklyn, New York: The Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) (7). Through this program, people with previous felony convictions spend up to two years in in-patient drug treatment programs (8). Though they must plead guilty to the new drug felonies, individuals in DTAP are not sentenced for those charges until after the program’s completion (9). Before the patients are released to outpatient programs, they receive help choosing their living arrangements and employment (10). This ensures that patients are not returning to environments that enable or encourage their drug usage.
Brooklyn’s DTAP program has been highly successful. Researchers Dynia and Sung (2000) found a 15 percent reduction in recidivism for participants in the program when compared to those who did not participate in the treatment program (11).
Impacts of Drug Treatment Programs
Drug treatment programs have produced overwhelmingly positive results by reducing recidivism and saving the lives of addicts far more effectively than incarceration. The Controlled Substances Act (1970) determines schedules for drugs, categorizing substances based on their potential for abuse.12 A provision of the Act, the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966, recognizes that addicts should receive treatment because their addictions are medical problems (13). However, the U.S. Department of Justice reports that “although this act [the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act] remains in effect, due to lack of appropriation and other reasons, it is not utilized to the extent to which it was in the years immediately following its enactment (14).” One cause of its under-implementation is the perception that criminal defendants manipulate the system by using rehabilitation programs to shorten their prison sentences without changing their long-term behavior (15).
However, given the high effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing recidivism, as seen in Brooklyn’s DTAP, this act should not be overlooked. The Stanford Network on Addiction Policy reports that people who participated in these programs were three times less likely to be arrested again and seven times more likely to stop using drugs (16). These treatment programs are effective because they help drug users break their cycles of drug abuse.
Judge Erin Leigh Waddell-Garrett from Caddo Parish, Louisiana, is an adamant advocate for drug treatment programs. She introduced drug treatment as an alternative to prison sentences in her own district in 2017. She wrote to the Yale Undergraduate Law Journal that in treatment, addicts “learn how to incorporate back to their daily lives with more strategies and equipment to be successful.” She stated that when an addict is sent to jail, “we expect him/her to make better choices with the same circumstance.” Without treatment programs, addicts typically re-enter their former lives and make the same mistakes. These programs give addicts the tools to restart.
An unchanged reentry into society is not only harmful to addicts; it is harmful to American society. From 1987 to 2007, approximately 4 to 5 percent of homicides were determined to be drug-related crimes (17). Additionally, in 2004, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 18 percent of federal and 17 percent of state prisoners admitted to committing their crimes for money to purchase drugs (18). Drug addiction creates desperation for the next high. This can lead to behaviors such as theft or other more harmful actions, with significant consequences for both the individuals involved as well as society as a whole.
It is important to remember the broad impacts of drug abuse. Judge Garrett says that “addiction affects the lives of not only addicts, but their mothers, fathers, children, spouses, friends, and anyone else close to them.” The loved ones of drug addicts suffer greatly when those individuals fall victim to addiction. When defendants are treated for their drug addictions, both addicts and their loved ones benefit: they are spared from the loss of or separation from their loved ones and any harm that the addicts might inflict upon them.
It is also cheaper for criminal justice systems to address drug use problems directly, with drug treatment programs costing about 50 to 85 percent less than incarceration (19) Though the cost of treatment programs varies, researchers from the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy show a cost of approximately $4,000 for treatment, compared to $20,000 for incarceration (20). Further, research from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy indicates that every dollar spent on rehabilitation saves $1.91 to $2.69 compared to the cost of incarceration (21). By helping criminal defendants navigate their drug addictions, future crime is prevented, thereby reducing the overall cost of responding to drug crimes long-term.
Conclusion
Drug treatment programs are essential to reducing recidivism and promoting health and safety within American society. The growing challenge of jail overcrowding has necessitated a shift in America’s approach to drug-related offenses, with rehabilitation programs emerging as an effective solution. These initiatives not only support individuals struggling with addiction but also reduce the incidence of drug-related recidivism.
When drug addicts are not offered alternative options to incarceration, the justice system fails to address the underlying causes of substance abuse. Instead of acting as a protective societal measure, the current usage of incarceration over treatment serves as a drain on public resources, adding to the overcrowding of prisons and often leaving individuals in a worse condition upon release. Drug addiction is an illness. It cannot be solved without proper treatment —not only for the symptoms, which punitive measures seek to address but for the underlying problem: dependency on a drug. Rehabilitation through drug treatment programs helps addicts break their drug dependencies, thereby making American society safer from drug-related crime.
Endnotes
(1) “Drug Courts as an Alternative to Incarceration.” n.d. Stanford Network on Addiction Policy. Stanford University. https://addictionpolicy.stanford.edu/drug-courts-alternative-incarceration.
Dynia, Paul, and Hung-En Sung. 2000. “The Safety and Effectiveness of Diverting Felony Drug Offenders to Residential Treatment as Measured by Recidivism.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 11 (4). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0887403400011004002?journalCode=cjpa#con1.
(2)“War on Drugs.” 2024. In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs.
(3)“War on Drugs”
(4) Turner, Deonna. 2024. “Crack Epidemic | United States History [1980s].” In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/crack-epidemic.
(5) “War on Drugs”
(6) Sawyer, Wendy, and Peter Wagner. 2024. “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2024.” Prison Policy Initiative. March 14, 2024. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html.
(7) “Program Profile: Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP).” 2011. Crime Solutions. National Institute of Justice. May 25, 2011. https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/drug-treatment-alternative-prison-dtap#6-0. Belenko, Steven, Matthew Hiller, and Leah Hamilton. 2013. “Treating Substance Use Disorders in the Criminal Justice System.” Current Psychiatry Reports 15 (11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-013-0414-z.
(8) “Program Profile”
(9) “Program Profile”
(10) “Program Profile”
(11) “Program Profile”
(12)Ortiz, Nicole R., and Charles V. Preuss. 2024. “Controlled Substance Act.” National Library of Medicine. National Center for Biotechnology Information. February 9, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574544/.
(13) “9-100.000 - the Controlled Substances Act.” 2020. U.S. Department of Justice. January 2020. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-100000-controlled-substances-act.
(14) “9-100.000”
(15) Friedman, S B, G L Horvat, and R B Levinson. 1982. “Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act - Its Impact on Federal Prisons | Office of Justice Programs.” Contemporary Drug Problems 11 (1): 101–11. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/narcotic-addict-rehabilitation-act-its-impact-federal-prisons#.
(16) “Drug Courts as an Alternative to Incarceration.”
(17) “Drug Use and Crime.” 2021. Bureau of Justice Statistics. June 1, 2021. https://bjs.ojp.gov/drugs-and-crime-facts/drug-use-and-crime.
(18) “Drug Use and Crime”
(19) “Drug Courts”
(20) McVay, Doug, Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2004. “Treatment or Incarceration? National and State Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment versus Imprisonment.” Open Society Foundations. Justice Policy Institute. March 2004. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/bc64a0f5-caa4-46a8-894a-e9ecf18f6198/treatment1.pdf.
(21) McVay et al.
