![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Although an offender can complete a drug court program in the United States, have his/her charges dismissed or reduced (or some other amelioration of the criminal justice system penalty that would otherwise have been applied), become drug free, obtain a job, regain custody of his/her children, become a tax-paying, law-abiding citizen, etc., he/she will still be deprived of basic rights afforded to other U.S. citizens because other sectors of public policy still approach addiction with a punitive orientation. Thus, despite the fact that an offender may have made a substantial beginning in recovery, other parts of the system make no accommodation for his/her recovery efforts in, for example, their denial of (a) welfare benefits to persons charged/convicted of drug offenses; (b) educational loans or other benefits to persons charged/convicted of drug offenses; (c) public housing to persons charged/convicted of drug offenses; and (d) voting rights to persons with felony convictions. In addition, deportation proceedings can be instituted—even for persons with a legal immigration status—based upon a charge or conviction for a drug offense.
Without changes in other key areas of public policy, the goals and benefits designed to be achieved by the criminal justice system through drug court programs can be thwarted in both the short and long term by the failure of a shift in thinking in other key public sector areas that are critical to meaningfully reintegrating substance-addicted offenders into the mainstream of the community. Hopefully, policy-makers will begin to address this critical need.
Notes
Notes
1. Drug Court Activity Update, June 2001. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse. School of Public Affairs, American University, with estimates of additional participants and graduates projected to reflect current activity based on the numbers of drug courts operating and estimated graduation activity reported.
2. The term “evidence-based,” as used in this article, refers to approaches used by criminal justice systems for dealing with substance abusing offenders that research has shown to produce beneficial results.
3. See Steven Belenko, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, May 2001; Drug Court Activity Updates: June 2001; OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project; American University; and many drug court program evaluations, examples of which are posted on the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse web site: www.american.edu/justice
4. Presentation by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye to Citizens' Crime Commission, New York City, October 27, 1999. See also Confronting the Cycle of Addiction and Recidivism: A Report to Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye by the New York State Commission on Drugs and the Courts. June 2000.
5. Publ. L. No. 104-120 § 110 Stat. 834 (Mar. 28, 1996) 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(1)(5) (1997).
6. 42 U.S.C. § 1437(d)(1)(5) (1997).
7. 24 C.F. R. § 966.4 (1)(2)(ii)(B) (1999).
8. Press releases, Office of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, February 4, 2003.
9. 30th Judicial District of Tennessee (Shelby County). District Attorney General's Office. Drug Dealer Eviction Program. Jackie Condrey, Investigator. Web site of William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General: www.scdag.com/ddev.htm
10. An Act Relating to Property-Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. State of Rhode Island. General Assembly, S. 0479, 2003.
11. 2000 Drug Court Survey Report, final draft. OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. School of Public Affairs, American University, November 2001.
12. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Publ. L. No. 104-193. For an excellent discussion of the implications of these provisions, see Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug Offenses by Patricia Allard. The Sentencing Project, February 2002.
13. See Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug Offenses, by Patricia Allard. The Sentencing Project, February 2002, and her citation to 142 Cong. Record No. 109, § 8498 (July 23, 1996).
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. See Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug Offenses, by Patricia Allard. The Sentencing Project, February 2002, p. 3, which cites the following states as having opted out: Connecticut, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Vermont.
17. Ibid., pp. 2–3.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid. The Sentencing Project cites the following states as applying the ban in toto as of 2002: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
20. Ibid. According to the Sentencing Project, the following states limit the ban to either specific offenses and/or a period of time following conviction: Arkansas, Florida, and Rhode Island limit the ban to offenses involving the sale of drugs only; Colorado limits the ban to offenses entailing the purchase of drugs with food stamps in which cases persons are ineligible for food stamps only; Illinois limits the ban to persons convicted of the sale of drugs or possession of a large quantity of drugs but still remain eligible for food stamps; Louisiana permits eligibility after a one-year period after release from custody or conviction date; North Carolina permits eligibility after six months but also requires ex-offenders to have successfully completed a drug treatment prior or be participating in one to have their eligibility restored. Massachusetts restricts eligibility for cash assistance to individuals incarcerated for a drug conviction during the first 12 months following their release unless the individual qualifies for a waiver under state statute (e.g., pregnancy, disability, caring for a child under two years of age, etc.). Persons convicted of a drug offense remain eligible for food stamps. In Texas, persons convicted of sale or possession of drugs are ineligible for food stamps only. Iowa also imposes a partial ban. In addition, Minnesota and Wisconsin requires persons convicted of drug offenses to submit to regular drug tests in order to receive benefits although they are not required to receive treatment.
21. Ibid. The Sentencing Project identified the follow states as permitting benefits if the ex-offender receives drug treatment: Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
22. Ibid.
23. See “Disenfranchisement: The Modern-Day Voting Rights Challenge,” Marc Mauer, Civil Rights Journal 2002; and The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, Human Rights Watch, published by The Sentencing Project, 1998. (Alabama, Arizona [second felony], Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland [second felony], Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.)
24. See “Disenfranchisement: The Modern-Day Voting Rights Challenge,” Marc Mauer, Civil Rights Journal 2002.
25. See Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, Human Rights Watch, 1998.
26. Only Maine and Vermont permit inmates to vote. See “State Action Issues: Voting Rights Restoration Overview,” Center for Policy Alternatives, www.stateaction.org/issues/governance/votingrights/index.cfm, 2003.
27. Hazel Trice Edney. “A Life Sentence: Denying Ex-Felons The Right to Vote,” The Call, Kansas City, Missouri, October 18, 2002, p. 4. See also: “State Action Issues: Voting Rights Restoration Overview,” Center for Policy Alternatives, www.stateaction.org/issues/governance/votingrights/index.cfm, 2003.
28. Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah. See “State Action Issues: Voting Rights Restoration Overview,” Center for Policy Alternatives, www.stateaction.org/issues/governance/votingrights/index.cfm, 2003.
29. Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Two additional states (Tennessee and Washington) permit restoration of voting rights for felons after completion of sentence except for felons convicted before 1986 (Tennessee) and 1984 (Washington).
30. Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Virginia, and Wyoming. See “State Action Issues: Voting Rights Restoration Overview,” Center for Policy Alternatives, www.stateaction.org/issues/governance/votingrights/index.cfm, 2003. Estimates of the numbers of disenfranchised felons who successfully regain their voting rights under these procedures are extremely low. See “Disenfranchisement: The Modern-Day Voting Rights Challenge,” Marc Mauer, Civil Rights Journal 2002.
31. The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., that promotes alternatives to incarceration, has published a number of excellent reports dealing with felon disenfranchisement statutes and closely tracks developments in this area. See, in particular, various articles by Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project and the Sentencing Project website: www.sentencingproject.org
32. Nor do they make any exception for other potentially mitigating factors, such as prior military service or subsequent restitution or community contributions.
33. Even discounting the impact of a drug offense conviction for a juvenile participating in a juvenile drug court program, many of the offenders affected by these provisions are adolescents whose cases are being handled in the adult criminal court. Three states establish adult jurisdiction at the age of 16 (Connecticut and New York, North Carolina), and ten additional states establish adult jurisdiction at the age of 17 (Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin).
34. Under the statute, offenders are ineligible for educational aid for one year for a first offense; two years for the second offense; and permanently for a third offense.
35. “How to Create an Underclass, Or How the War on Drugs Became a War on Education,” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 61, 2002, with Eva Nilsen (symposium).
36. Swarthmore Phoenix, March 6, 2002.
37. Reeves and Associates, Recent Court Decisions Rejects INS—Unconstitutional Interpretation of Law and Forces Reopening of Cases, May 30, 2000.
38. In Re Mauro Roldan-Santoyo, File A90 286-629, Boise. Board of Immigration Appeals, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice, March 3, 1999.
39. Reeves and Associates, Deportation and Drugs: The Shabu Epidemic, January 17, 2000.
40. Lugan-Armendariz v. INS, U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Number 96-70431, August 1, 2000.
41. See “Appeals Court Strikes New Deportation Stand,” Reuters News Service, February 12, 2002.