Criminal justice responses to drug offences: Recidivism following the application of alternative sanctions in Belgium

Abstract

Drug offences require adequate responses from the criminal justice system. In most Western European countries, including Belgium, the use of judicial alternative sanctions for drug users is on the increase. The objective of the current research was to examine the effects of judicial alternatives for drug users in Belgium. The design of this study comprises a pre and post measurement of the criminal activity, drug use and situation in different spheres of life of 565 drug-dependent offenders. Reduced offending was observed following the application of alternative sanctions. On average, the research subjects incurred fewer criminal charges and convictions after the judicial alternative than prior to it. In addition, their involvement in drug offences, property and violent crime decreased. This covaries with a remarkable reduction in problematic drug use and an improvement in other aspects of their life—including more supportive social relations and prosocial leisure time.

Notes

Notes

[1] Considering the element of—constrained—choice Stevens et al. (2005a) refer to treatment in the framework of an alternative sanction as ‘quasi-compulsory treatment’, defined as ‘the treatment of drug-dependent offenders that is motivated, ordered or supervised by the criminal justice system and takes place outside regular prisons’.

[2] This research was funded by the Belgian Federal Science Policy and is a part of the Research programme in support of the federal drugs policy document.

[3] At least this was the case in 1999 and 2001, reference years of this study. Now, public prosecutors are no longer allowed to apply mediation for victimless offences.

[4] If necessary, e.g. because of attrition, the sampling process was repeated in order to reach the postulated number of files.

[5] Previously existing trends persist.

[6] Follow-up values are closer to the mean, because random error in the pre measurement caused a proportion of the extreme values.

[7] Improvement occurs spontaneously.

[8] Arrest and reconviction rates are the most commonly used indicators (Inciardi, Martin, & Butzin, 2004; Piquero, 2003; Stanford & Arrigo, 2005), although most European studies only contain reconviction rates (Wartna & Nijssen, 2006). We opted for criminal charge as a counterpart for arrest, since this is the basis of registered crime in Belgium. Kyvsgaard (2003) opted for a similar operationalization.

[9] Our results are based on criminal record data, while not necessarily all offences committed by the research subjects are known to the police. This so-called dark number is a much described limitation of officially registered crime. In a recent study by Gossop et al., however, a statistically significant association was found between conviction and self-reported measures of offending (Gossop et al., 2006).

[10] EuropASI is one of the most important assessment tools regarding drug use. The instrument is used in two phases: the first interview takes place at the beginning of treatment, the second as follow-up to assess the treatment outcome.

[11] Because progress in life spheres is by definition a dynamic variable, we used a lengthy follow-up period and large assessment categories in order to facilitate the allocation of the research subjects to the categories.

[12] The rate is calculated by dividing the number of charges/convictions through the time span of the period concerned. The value that is found is multiplied by 365. The rate thus reflects the average number of charges/convictions per year. The reference period for the first rate starts with the first charge and ends when the judicial alternative is granted. The reference period for the second charge starts with the judicial alternative and lasts until the end of the follow-up period of five years.

[13] The latter is also known as ‘use in binges’, which occurs mainly when using alcohol, cocaine and amphetamines.