As scholars of alcohol and other drugs we should be concerned with the ongoing development of criminal justice policy and the narratives it reinforces about the nature of the relationship between substance use/intoxication and crime. Intoxication is one of the most prevalent features of offending before the courts (Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, Citation2017). As such it is key to understand how courts respond to cases involving alcohol or other drug intoxication both in terms of how they operate and the sentences they dispense. This editorial on the topic of courts and sentencing covers issues of how intoxication is dealt with in sentencing, specialist substance use courtsFootnote1 and court-enforced alcohol abstinence. Drawing primarily upon examples in the English and Welsh context and pointing to similar developments across the globe, it argues that, when considered together, these parallel developments represent a trend towards the punitive reinforcement of the abstinence ideal in criminal justice policy.
Specialist substance use courts
There is continued growth and development of specialist substance use courts internationally (cf. Stinchcomb, Citation2010). With their origins in the US in the 1980s and the first in the UK being in Glasgow, Scotland (Bean, Citation2001), these problem-solving courts tend to be founded on the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence (cf. Butler, Citation2013; Stinchcomb, Citation2010) and draw on medicalized interpretations of addiction to offer judicially supervised treatment in an effort to reduce recidivism and incarceration. They are principally focused on promoting abstinence, through legal coercion (Carr Citation2020; Tiger, Citation2011). Treatment is overseen by the court and the threat of sanctions used to motivate compliance. And, although substance use courts share a common aim their approaches and ideologies can vary considerably. For example, ‘American courts tend to be more punitive, more formal, give fewer chances and longer sentences. Canadian courts are markedly less formal and give people repeat chances to try to get clean’ (Moore, Citation2009, p. 1). Moreover, courts’ target populations, program design, and resources will also differ and success is contingent on the quality of judicial interactions with defendants (Roman et al., Citation2020). Indeed, the way in which substance use courts ought to operate – such as the nature and content of treatment sessions in court-mandated drug treatment is contested (Best et al., Citation2010)Footnote2 and there are challenges associated with policy transfer between contexts (Butler, Citation2013; Collins, Citation2019).
Drug courts are not without controversy as a range of studies published on specialist substance use courts and related sentencing practices underscore inherent and ongoing tensions in defining the purposes and effective operationalisation of specialist substance use courts. These include, amongst others, the need for ‘provision of treatment services for dependent users as an alternative to custodial sentencing’ (Nelson, Citation2023, p. 196), the validity of coerced or court mandated treatment (Carr Citation2020; Seddon Citation2007; Stevens Citation2012) and whether judicial alternative sanctions for drug users are effective (De Wree et al., Citation2009). Although reviews of drug courts tend to be positive as far as known offending outcomes are concerned (see College of Policing, Citation2015).
There also exist fundamental ‘‘discursive struggles’ between criminal justice sanctions and health interventions’ when embedding health-focused support within criminal sanctions (Price et al., Citation2021) that are difficult to reconcile, as they blur the lines between punishment and treatment as a method of control (Carr, Citation2020; European Commission et al., 2016; Powell et al., Citation2007). Chief among these is the consideration of the purposes of sentencing that underpin specialist substance use courts. That is, consideration of treatment versus punishment ideals (Powell et al., Citation2007). These are often considered at odds with each other, as trust between those delivering and undergoing court-enforced treatment is undermined when people are coerced into treatment through threats of punishment and practitioners are obliged to disclose and manage criminogenic risk (see, for example, Weston Citation2016). Indeed, even if some suggest ‘the criminal justice system (CJS) is an equally valid route into drug treatment’ (Donmall et al., Citation2009, p. 1), the notion that participants’ consent to treatment represents a ‘choice’ in criminal justice contexts has been extensively critiqued (e.g. Seddon Citation2007; Stevens Citation2012) and some have gone so far as to argue that punitive abstinence treatment models (which view addiction as a disease and abstinence as a goal) should be avoided entirely (Carr Citation2020). Yet the specialist problem-solving court model remains popular as an alternative to the normal criminal court system (as evidenced by its continued use and expansion in many jurisdictionsFootnote3). And an early study spanning five European countries found those in treatment via legally coerced routes did perceive greater pressure engage treatment ‘but that this does not necessarily lead to higher or lower motivation than “volunteers”’ with many participants valuing the opportunity to get treatment through quasi-coerced pathways (Stevens et al., Citation2006, p. 197).
The enthusiasm for drug courts continued roll out is based on studies which evidence success through measures of reduced substance use and recidivismFootnote4 and under the guise of diverting people away from prison (Eaglin, Citation2016), despite not always being as effective as suggested (Collins et al., Citation2019). Whilst critics suggest drug courts aggressively insert ‘the criminal justice system into the private lives of an expanding mass of citizens’ (Eaglin, Citation2016, p. 595) and expect defendants ‘to transform in their home communities, regardless of […] underlying social and economic ills’ (Eaglin, Citation2016, p. 606) when participants often face ‘severe problems extending well beyond addiction’ including ‘unemployment, homelessness, and low levels of educational achievement’ (Cissner et al., Citation2004, p. 2). Others have also argued that ‘by ascribing a disease state to defendants, drug courts erase considerations of race from discussions of criminal justice processing’ allowing ‘medical designations [to] mask the racial and class control drug court and similar strategies are engaged in’ (Tiger, Citation2011, p. 180). And some have highlighted how females engaged in drug courts ‘faced greater socioeconomic disadvantages than males and also had consistently more severe drug use and treatment histories’ (Cissner et al., Citation2004, p. 2). Indeed, drug courts do little to address underlying social issues impacting drug involved offenders or the services needed to improve client outcomes (Collins et al., Citation2019). And whilst England and Wales had initial challenges implementing drug courts and limited success in introducing them (Bean, Citation2002; Estep, Citation2013, Collins, Citation2019)Footnote5, it has recently shown renewed commitment to (re-)introducing problem-solving courts for crime associated with drug and alcohol use (Ministry of Justice and The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Citation2022).
Sentencing guidelines relating to substance use and intoxication
A parallel development has been sentencing guidelines that promote consistency in sentencing relating to a range of offence types and matters, including substance use. Sentencing councils, tasked with overseeing sentencing standards and consistency, have emerged internationally (Freiberg, Citation2021; Roberts, Citation2019) and guide practitioners in arriving at suitable sentences in criminal courts.Footnote6,Footnote7
As a visible and symbolic stage in the criminal justice process, sentencing communicates moral and social judgements about defendants’ blameworthiness. In England and Wales, sentencing guidelines have materialised to suggest intoxication owing to drug and/or alcohol use (as distinct from dependency) results in defendants being more culpable for their offending and this ought to be reflected in an increased sentence. The Sentencing CouncilFootnote8 offer limited rationale for this position (Dingwall & Koffman, Citation2008), which does not accord with scientific evidence which tells us intoxication is a matter of degree and affects people in different ways (Room, Citation2020). Nor does it accord with prevailing social or cultural beliefs held about how intoxication may diminish responsibility or disavow offending behaviour (Dingwall & Koffman, Citation2008) or approaches adopted in other jurisdictions. For example, in France and Germany, alcohol is not considered to be an aggravating factor in crime (Bègue et al., Citation2020). However, it does contain the implicit denunciative message that that offenders must accept the consequences of their behaviour even if intoxicated.
How intoxication shapes responsibility for one’s actions is not straightforward, and how it should therefore influence punishment contested. Indeed, research finds divergent ways in which intoxication informs sentencing dependent upon the circumstances and offender characteristics, exposing potential disparities and bias in sentence outcomes. For example, the gendered way in which intoxication serves to increase sentence outcomes (Lightowlers, Citation2019). Intoxication thus remains a controversial sentencing factor (Dingwall & Koffman, Citation2008; Lightowlers and Pina-Sánchez, Citation2017; Lightowlers, Citation2019; Lightowlers et al., Citation2020; Warner et al., Citation2018) and the English and Welsh position leaves several pertinent questions for practitioners to reconcile concerning whether intoxication might in some instances mitigate offending or be deemed irrelevant. These include, although are not limited to, how sentencers should determine the relevance, role and weight afforded to intoxication in any given case, how they distinguish between intoxication owing to legal and illegal substances, and how they consider addiction (which might diminish responsibility, for example where addiction interferes with volitional substance use). The current guidelines, as in the Australian context, leave sentencers to draw upon their own personal and varied sentencing philosophies and beliefs about intoxication (Quilter and McNamara, Citation2018) to reconcile such considerations and arrive at sentencing decisions. Given the plurality of sentencing principlesFootnote9, attitudes and beliefs held about substance use and substance users as well as variations in knowledge of the law (Akanni et al., Citation2022), the potential for unwarranted disparities and bias in sentence outcomes remains and may unduly criminalise certain substance using populations (as seen in the Australian context in relation to diversion upon arrest/charge; Hughes et al., Citation2019).
Whilst legal responses tend toward oversimplifying clinical complexities (Koehler, Citation2020), many suggest it is not the case that someone who is intoxicated is automatically more culpable than a sober aggressor or their offending more serious (see Law Society of NSW, Citation2015). The sentencing guidelines concur to a degree, as they permit mitigation in cases where a defendant is showing ‘determination and/or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour’ (Sentencing Council, Citation2011). That is leniency may be afforded where a defendant is known to be dependent upon alcohol or other drugs and is adhering to an abstinence-based recovery ideal as endorsed by the courts. Here a distinction is introduced in relation to substance users. Namely, a group considered to be in control and voluntarily engaging in substance use, and so charged with self-regulation, which is contrasted against another which is, owing to their dependence, considered clinically impaired and lacking in volition and control over their substance use and subsequent behaviour and thus seen as deserving of mitigation. Effectively sentencing policy in England and Wales suggests a dichotomy of recreational (and wilfully reckless/irresponsible) versus dependent (involuntarily pathologized) substance users and Probation Service assessments are sometimes provided to the court to confirm such categorisation (based on Alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) scores) and assist them in arriving at a suitable sentence. This distinction resonates with a dichotomy of dependent and otherwise ‘unproblematic’ users in drug policy more generally (Lancaster et al., Citation2015). This dichotomous distinction has the benefit of appeasing both rehabilitation and punishment advocates in one policy, despite inherent contradictions. In rendering these states inherently incompatible, the sentencing guidelines wed themselves to a bio-medical/clinical ‘alcoholism’ framework (see Morris et al., Citation2023) and silence any considerations of drug use as a continuum or sociocultural practice – that is, the possibility that users might change state and the nature of their use over time and in different settings (Lancaster et al. Citation2015). Consequently, those who choose to consume alcohol and/or other drugs irresponsibly are characterised as more deviant and deserving of increased punishment control and monitoring, whilst those who are considered dependent are exempted from responsibility for their decision to engage in substance use and thus accountability for their actions.
Alcohol abstinence monitoring
Playing into the dichotomies of substance users established by the sentencing guidelines, approaches to sentencing can also be divided into offering treatment to those who are established as dependentFootnote10 or imposing further controls upon those considered to have choice over their substance use. When it comes to the latter, technological advancements have seen the development of court-enforced bans on alcohol consumption which can be electronically monitored. Although the idea of imposing alcohol bans emerged in the United States (Bainbridge, Citation2019; Long, Citation2016), England and Wales have embraced new technology which can monitor alcohol consumption via a transdermal bracelet fitted to an individual’s ankleFootnote11 in several national criminal justice developments. The first, available since 2020 in Wales and 2021 in England, was the Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) – a period of mandated sobriety that courts can impose on individuals serving their sentence in the community for up to 120 days. Its use was extended for prison leavers with a history of alcohol misuse by the introduction of Alcohol Monitoring on License (AML) in Wales in November 2021 and England in June 2022. AML allows probation to impose a license condition enforcing sobriety or monitor drinking set levels. This innovation is thought to reduce reoffending, and support rehabilitation. Inadvertently this also extends the use of the technology to include those who have previously been known to be dependent upon alcohol, as they may also be monitored upon release from prison. The influence of this technology in shaping criminal justice policy shows no sign of abating, as it is also currently being piloted by police officers for those arrested for alcohol-related or nighttime economy crimesFootnote12. These developments represent a step-change in the punitive reinforcement of the abstinence ideal (and a move away from rehabilitative ideals and treatment) and are being used in other jurisdictions including the USA, CanadaFootnote13, New Zealand and AustraliaFootnote14, PolandFootnote15, and the NetherlandsFootnote16. Their operational risks are subject to ongoing debate concerning, for example, the stigma wearing such devises can reinforce (Piper, Citation2020) and erroneously mandating alcohol abstinence for dependent drinkers - which can have serious health implications. Concerns about how these requirements ‘extend the state’s control over the individual beyond the determination of guilt’ and expose ‘people on supervision to an increased likelihood of incarceration in the future’ through non-compliance (should they drink) have also been raised (Eaglin, Citation2016, p. 632).
The original 24/7 sobriety scheme in South Dakota (USA) imposed alcohol abstinence with frequent testing (breathalyzer tests at police stations and later via alcohol bracelets) and observed high levels of compliance under these conditions (∼99%; South Dakota Attorney General, 2019 cited in Midgette et al., Citation2021). The scheme’s introduction was also attributed to reductions in county level arrests for repeat drunk driving and domestic violence (Kilner et al., 2013) and decreases in re-arrest rates at the individual level (Kilmer & Midgette, Citation2020). Decreases in rates of substance use-involved crimes were also observed in the states of North Dakota and Montana where the scheme was also subsequently implemented (see Midgette et al. Citation2021 and Midgette and Kilmer, Citation2021 respectively). To date, evidence on court enforced alcohol abstinence in England and Wales demonstrates high levels of compliance with these terms whilst being (electronically) monitored and subject to the threat of further court hearings and possible incarceration (Pepper and Dawson, Citation2016, Hobson et al., Citation2018). However, less is known about its impact on reoffending beyond the term of the alcohol ban, with two early studies providing no evidence of an impact on recidivism (Harrison et al., Citation2020; Hobson et al., Citation2017). As we can see in its widespread roll out across several domains of criminal justice in England and Wales, the lack of evidence on the efficacy of sobriety monitoring has not dampened political appetite.Footnote17 And whilst currently the technology is only available for use with non-dependent drinkersFootnote18 its use for monitoring treatment engagement, progress and/or compliance is likely to follow and is already being explored amongst those in treatment settings (Brobbin et al., Citation2024; SCRAM Systems, Citation2017). The electronic monitoring of drug use will no doubt follow too, as and when technological developments allow.Footnote19
Conclusion
In detailing the above criminal justice developments – sentencing guidelines relating to intoxication, specialist substance use courts and the widespread roll-out of court-enforced (electronic) alcohol monitoring, we observe the way in which alcohol and drug users are dichotomised as either recreational (and wilfully reckless/irresponsible) or dependent (involuntarily pathologized) and increasingly monitored and criminalised in the punitive reinforcement of the abstinence ideal. Whilst developments in the English and Welsh context are used by way of illustrative examples, such considerations are of global concern as specialist substance use courts and innovations in alcohol monitoring continue to emerge across the globe, and jurisdictions increasingly look to England and Wales (as well as the US) to develop their own sentencing guidelines (Roberts, Citation2019).
Their focus on abstinence and monitoring represents a departure from therapeutic treatment-based interventionsFootnote20 and reveals the punitive ideal that underpins them (Powell et al., Citation2007). More needs to be understood about how these criminal justice innovations are targeted at and criminalise particular populations disproportionately and potentially reinforce socio-cultural disadvantages (although some headway has been made by Carr, Citation2020). We already know those from deprived communities are known to suffer disproportionately from the harms associated with alcohol consumption (c.f. the alcohol-harm paradox; Beard et al., Citation2016; Bellis et al., Citation2016) and are more likely to be criminalised (Reiman & Leighton, Citation2023). And studies have previously found gendered disparities in the sentencing of assault offences involving intoxication (Lightowlers, Citation2019), with Fleetwood et al. (Citation2015) noting the importance of gendered considerations in sentencing drug supply offences. Studies have also observed harsher sentencing of drug related offences where offenders were from ethnic groups other than those identifying as ‘White’ (Brennan & Spohn, Citation2008; Curry & Corral-Camacho, Citation2008; Isaac, Citation2020; Lymperopoulou, Citation2024; Steffensmeier & Demuth, Citation2000). As such, this editorial represents a call to action to consider these criminal justice innovations and their impact.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Funding
Notes
1 Here the focus is on criminal (as opposed to say family) courts that are concerned with drug and alcohol-related offending, these tend to be based on the more general problem-solving court model (see Centre for Justice Innovation, Citation2023).
2 Though best practice principles have been established for some time (see Bull, Citation2005).
3 See https://www.justicespeakersinternational.com/drug-treatment-courts-around-world/ [Accessed 13/02/2024].
4 “During the past 20 years, more than 150 individual studies have been conducted to assess recidivism and arrest outcomes associated with drug court participants (Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006). The vast majority of these studies have found that individuals who successfully completed the program engaged in lower recidivism as measured by subsequent arrests for both drug and nondrug offenses. Nevertheless, systematic reviews of these studies have noted that most participant-level evaluations have been plagued with selection bias, lack of equivalent comparison, and other methodological problems (Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2005a; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & Mackenzie, 2012)” (Lilly et al., 2020, p.289).
5 Although powers since the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have allowed courts to place offenders on compulsory drug treatment.
6 In England and Wales, sentencers are expected to follow sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council except where they believe it is not in the interests of justice to do so (Sentencing Act 2020, s. 59(1)).
7 However, their guidelines have no bearing on the accessibility or availability of treatment which people may be diverted to. A problem acutely highlighted by recent research in England and Wales (Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and Ministry of Justice, Citation2023).
8 An independent arm’s length body of the Ministry of Justice, set up in April 2010 under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing while maintaining the independence of the judiciary.
9 There are five key principles of sentencing: punishment, reduction of crime, reparation, rehabilitation and public protection (Sentencing Act 2020 Section 57).
10 For example, by mandating alcohol or drug treatment as part of a community sentence.
11 See https://www.scramsystems.com/scram-international/gb/ [Accessed 13/02/2024].
12 https://www.scramsystems.com/scram-blog/uk-police-and-bbc-trial-scram-continuous-alcohol-monitoring/ [Accessed 13/02/2024].
13 https://www.scramsystems.com/scram-international/ca/and https://www.scramsystems.com/providers/recovery-science-corporation/ [Accessed 13/02/2024].
14 https://www.scramsystems.com/media-room/alcohol-detection-anklets-showing-promise-in-nz/ [Accessed 13/02/2024].
15 Nowak et al. (Citation2023).
16 https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2020/05/18/alcohol-monitoring-ankle-bracelet-introduced-nationally [Accessed 13/02/2024].
17 Nor has the fact that an attempt at introducing Drug Abstinence Orders (DAOs) and equivalent Requirements (DARs) in England and Wales nearly 25 years ago failed (Home Office, Citation2003).
18 As these initiatives impose abstinence, which can be dangerous for those dependent upon alcohol.
19 See drug patch developments https://scramsystemsau.com/and https://www.pharmchek.com/[Accessed 13/02/2024].
20 Acknowledging that these are also contested in criminal justice settings.
References
- Akanni, O. O., James, B. O., & Arigbede, O. O. (2022). The attitude of attorneys toward substance users and referral of offenders for drug treatment in southern Nigeria. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 29(2), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2021.1901856
- Bainbridge, L. (2019). Transferring 24/7 sobriety from South Dakota to South London: The case of MOPAC’s alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement pilot. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 114(9), 1696–1705. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14609
- Bean, P. (2001). Drug courts coming to Britain. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8(4), 303–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687630110097779
- Bean, P. (2002). Drug treatment courts, British style: the drug treatment court movement in Britain. Substance Use & Misuse, 37(12-13), 1595–1614. https://doi.org/10.1081/ja-120014423
- Beard, E., Brown, J., West, R., Angus, C., Brennan, A., Holmes, J., Kaner, E., Meier, P., & Michie, S. (2016). Deconstructing the alcohol harm paradox: A population based survey of adults in England. PLoS One, 11(9), e0160666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160666
- Bègue, L., Zerhouni, O., & Jobard, F. (2020). The role of alcohol intoxication on sentencing by judges and laypersons: Findings from a binational experiment in Germany and France. International Criminal Justice Review, 33(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567720953874
- Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Nicholls, J., Sheron, N., Gilmore, I., & Jones, L. (2016). The alcohol harm paradox: Using a national survey to explore how alcohol may disproportionately impact health in deprived individuals. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2766-x
- Best, D., Wood, K., Sweeting, R., Morgan, B., & Day, E. (2010). Fitting a quart into a black box: Keyworking in quasi-coercive drug treatment in England. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 17(4), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687630802490792
- Brennan, P. K., & Spohn, C. (2008). Race/ethnicity and sentencing outcomes among drug offenders in North Carolina. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(4), 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986208322712
- Brobbin, E., Parkin, S., Deluca, P., & Drummond, C. (2024). A qualitative exploration of the experiences of transdermal alcohol sensor devices amongst alcohol service practitioners (South London, UK). Addiction Research & Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2024.2309869
- Bull, M. (2005). A comparative review of best practice guidelines for the diversion of drug related offenders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.05.007
- Butler, S. (2013). The symbolic politics of the Dublin drug court: The complexities of policy transfer. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 20(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2012.740524
- Carr, T. (2020). Governing addiction: The alcohol and other drug treatment court in New Zealand [PhD thesis]. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/handle/10063/8835
- Centre for Justice Innovation. (2023). Problem-solving courts: A guide to practice in the United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://justiceinnovation.org/publications/problem-solving-courts-guide-practice-united-kingdom
- Cissner, A., Kralstein, D., & Rempel, M. (2004). Drug courts, an effective treatment alternative. Centre for Justice Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.innovatingjustice.org/publications/drug-courts-effective-treatment-alternative
- College of Policing. (2015). Drug courts. Retrieved from https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit/drug-courts
- Collins, J. (2019). Explaining the failure of drug courts in the United Kingdom. Chapter 5. In J. Collins, W. Agnew-Pauley, & A. Söderholm (Eds.), Rethinking drug courts : International experiences of a US policy export. London Publishing Partnership.
- Collins, J., Agnew-Pauley, W. and Söderholm, A. (Eds.) (2019). Rethinking drug courts: International experiences of a US policy export. London Publishing Partnership.
- Curry, T. R., & Corral-Camacho, G. (2008). Sentencing young minority males for drug offenses: Testing for conditional effects between race/ethnicity, gender and age during the US war on drugs. Punishment & Society, 10(3), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474508090231
- De Wree, E., De Ruyver, B., & Pauwels, L. (2009). Criminal justice responses to drug offences: Recidivism following the application of alternative sanctions in Belgium. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 16(6), 550–560. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687630802133632
- Dingwall, G., & Koffman, L. (2008). Determining the impact of intoxication in a desert-based sentencing framework. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(3), 335–348.): https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895808093438
- Donmall, M., Jones, A., Davies, L., & Barnard, M. (2009). Summary of key findings from the Drug Treatment Outcomes Research Study (DTORS). Home Office Research Report 23 Summary. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74d44d40f0b65f61322912/horr23.pdf
- Eaglin, J. M. (2016). The drug court paradigm. American Criminal Law Review, 53(3), 595–640.
- Estep, B. (2013). Better courts case-study west London drug court. New Economic Foundation. Retrieved from https://justiceinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2019-03/west-london-drug-court-case-study.pdf
- Disley, E., Ito, K., Strang, L., European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs., et al. (2016). Study on alternatives to coercive sanctions as response to drug law offences and drug-related crimes. Publications Office. Retrieved from https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2837/662794
- Fleetwood, J., Radcliffe, P., & Stevens, A. (2015). Shorter sentences for drug mules: The early impact of the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 22(5), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2015.1011607
- Freiberg, A. (2021). Bridging gaps, not leaping chasms: Trust, confidence and sentencing councils. International Journal for Court Administration, 12(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.421
- Harrison, A., Yesberg, J., Keenan, M., Quadrant, R., McSweeney, T., & Webster, R. (2020). Alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement final impact evaluation. MOPAC Evidence & Insight.
- Hobson, Z., Harrison, A., & Dawson, P. (2017). Alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement – South London pilot indicative impact report. MOPAC Evidence and Insight.
- Hobson, Z., Harrison, A., & Duckworth, L. (2018). Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement: A review of process and performance from Year 2. MOPAC Evidence & Insight.
- Home Office. (2003). Evaluation of drug testing in the criminal justice system in nine pilot areas. Home Office Research Findings, 180.
- Hughes, C., Seear, K., Ritter, A., & Mazerolle, L. (2019). Criminal justice responses relating to personal use and possession of illicit drugs: The reach of Australian drug diversion programs and barriers and facilitators to expansion. Drug Policy Modelling Program Monograph 27. Retrieved from https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/27-criminal-justice-responses-relating-personal-use-and-possession-illicit-drugs-reach
- Isaac, A. (2020). Investigating the association between an offender’s sex and ethnicity and the sentence imposed at the Crown Court for drug offences. Sentencing Council.
- Kilmer, B., & Midgette, G. (2020). Criminal deterrence: Evidence from an individual-level analysis of 24/7 sobriety. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(3), 801–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22217
- Kilmer, B., Nicosia, N., Heaton, P., & Midgette, G. (2013). Efficacy of frequent monitoring with swift, certain and modest sanctions for violations: Insights from South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Project. American Journal of Public Health, 103(1), e37–43. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300989
- Koehler, J. (2020). Legal concept-creep and scientific imprecision. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 115(12), 2208–2209. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15141
- Lancaster, K., Duke, K., & Ritter, A. (2015). Producing the ‘problem of drugs’: A cross national-comparison of ‘recovery’ discourse in two Australian and British reports. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 26(7), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.04.006
- Law Society of NSW. (2015). Alcohol and drug fuelled violence. Submission by The Law Society of NSW. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingcouncil.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Projects_Complete/Alcohol%20and%20drug%20fuelled%20violence/ADFV12.pdf
- Lightowlers, C. (2019). Drunk & doubly deviant? Gender, intoxication and assault. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(3), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy041
- Lightowlers, C., Pina-Sánchez, J., & Watkins, E. (2020). Contextual culpability: How drinking and social context impact upon sentencing of violence. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 22(3), 442–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820972160
- Lightowlers, C., & Pina-Sánchez, J. (2017). Intoxication and assault: An analysis of Crown Court sentencing practices in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology, 58(1), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azx008
- Lilley, D. R., Stewart, M. C., & Tucker-Gail, K. (2020). Drug courts and net-widening in U.S. cities: A reanalysis using propensity score matching. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(2), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419828045
- Long, L. (2016). Overview of the first 24/7 program in South Dakota. In the National 24/7 Sobriety Advisory Council. 24/7 Sobriety Program: Essential Elements and Best Practices. https://www.scramsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/24-7-sobriety-program-essential-elements-best-practices.pdf
- Lymperopoulou, K. (2024). Ethnic inequalities in sentencing: Evidence from the crown court in England and Wales. The British Journal of Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azae005
- Midgette, G., Kilmer, B., Nicosia, N., & Heaton, P. (2021). A Natural Experiment to Test the Effect of Sanction Certainty and Celerity on Substance-Impaired Driving: North Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(3), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09458-6
- Midgette, G., & Kilmer, B. (2021). Can novel “swift-certain-fair” programs work outside of pioneering jurisdictions? An analysis of 24/7 sobriety in Montana, USA. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 116(12), 3381–3387. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15584
- Ministry of Justice and The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP. (2022). New problem-solving courts to combat drug and alcohol-fuelled crime. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-problem-solving-courts-to-combat-drug-and-alcohol-fuelled-crime
- Moore, D. (2009). The drug treatment court movement. Criminal Justice Matters, 75(1), 30–31. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/drug-treatment-court-movement https://doi.org/10.1080/09627250802699772
- Morris, J., Boness, C. L., & Burton, R. (2023). (Mis)understanding alcohol use disorder: Making the case for a public health first approach. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 253, 111019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.111019
- Nelson, E. E. (2023). ‘I cannot stop taking weed cos it makes me survive’: Cannabis use, criminal sanctions and users’ experiences in Nigeria. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 30(2), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2021.1972936
- Nowak, B. M., Grzesiak, S. G., & Zawadzka, M. (2023). Transdermal measurement and monitoring of alcohol concentration: Possibilities of implementation and adaptation in the polish penitentiary and post-penitentiary system. Publishing House Academy of Justice.
- Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and Ministry of Justice. (2023). Pathways between probation and addiction treatment in England. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pathways-between-probation-and-addiction-treatment-in-england
- Pepper, M., & Dawson, P. (2016). Alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement: A process review of the proof of concept pilot. MOPAC Evidence and Insight.
- Piper, R. (2020). Sobriety ankle tags may reduce crime but they will increase stigma around alcohol. Retrieved from https://inews.co.uk/opinion/sobriety-tags-ankle-reduce-crime-stigma-alcohol-429454
- Powell, C. L., Bamber, D., & Christie, M. M. (2007). Drug treatment in the criminal justice system: Lessons learned from offenders on DTTOs. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 14(4), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687630601079507
- Price, T., Parkes, T., & Malloch, M. (2021). ‘Discursive struggles’ between criminal justice sanctions and health interventions for people who use drugs: A qualitative exploration of diversion policy and practice in Scotland. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 28(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2020.1775180
- Quilter, J., & McNamara, L. (2018). The meaning of ‘‘intoxication’’ in Australian criminal cases: Origins and operation. New Criminal Law Review, 21(1), 170–207. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2018.21.1.170
- Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2023). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Thinking critically about class and criminal justice (13th ed.). Routledge.
- Roberts, J. V. (2019). The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales. Crime and Justice, 48, 187–253. https://doi.org/10.1086/701797
- Roman, J. K., Yahner, J., & Zweig, J. (2020). How do drug courts work? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09421-2
- Room, R. (2020). Societal responses to intoxication. In F. Hutton (Ed.), Cultures of intoxication. Palgrave Macmillan.
- SCRAM Systems. (2017). Sobriety tags help UK borough target alcohol offenses, reduce costs. Retrieved from https://www.scramsystems.com/scram-blog/sobriety-tags-program-helps-uk-borough-target-alcohol-offenses-reduce-costs/
- Seddon, T. (2007). Coerced drug treatment in the criminal justice system: Conceptual, ethical and criminological issues. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895807078867
- Sentencing Council of England and Wales. (2011). Assault: Definitive guideline. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/
- Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 65(5), 705–729. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657543
- Stevens, A. (2012). The ethics and effectiveness of coerced treatment of people who use drugs. Human Rights and Drugs, 2(1), 7–16. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2425124
- Stevens, A., Berto, D., Frick, U., Hunt, N., Kerschl, V., McSweeney, T., Oeuvray, K., Puppo, I., Santa Maria, A., Schaaf, S., Trinkl, B., Uchtenhagen, A., & Werdenich, W. (2006). The relationship between legal status, perceived pressure and motivation in treatment for drug dependence: Results from a European study of Quasi-Compulsory Treatment. European Addiction Research, 12(4), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094422
- Stinchcomb, J. B. (2010). Drug courts: Conceptual foundation, empirical findings, and policy implications. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 17(2), 148–167. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687630802286901
- Tiger, R. (2011). Drug courts and the logic of coerced treatment. Sociological Forum, 26(1), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01229.x
- Warner, K., Spiranovic, C., Freiberg, A., Davis, J., & Bartels, L. (2018). Aggravating or mitigating? comparing judges’ and jurors’ views on four ambiguous sentencing factors. Journal of Judicial Administration, 28, 51–66.
- Weston, S. (2016). The everyday work of the drug treatment practitioner: The influence and constraints of a risk-based agenda. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 511–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018316632666