‘Discursive struggles’ between criminal justice sanctions and health interventions for people who use drugs: a qualitative exploration of diversion policy and practice in Scotland

References

• Ashton, M. (2008). The new abstentionists. Drug Scope, 1(1), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Best, D., & Colman, C. (2019). Let’s celebrate recovery. Inclusive Cities working together to support social cohesion. Journal of Addiction Research and Theory, 27(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2018.1520223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Best, D., Day, E., Homayoun, S., Lenton, H., Moverley, R., & Openshaw, M. (2008). Treatment retention in the Drug Intervention Programme: Do primary drug users fare better than primary offenders? Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 15(2), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687630701198165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bewley-Taylor, D., & Jelsma, M. (2016). UNGASS 2016: A Broken or Broad Consensus? UN summit cannot hide a growing divergence in the global drug policy landscape.
   Google Scholar
  Transnational Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Black, C. (2020). Independent review of drugs by Professor Dame Carol Black. UK Government.
   Google Scholar
• Bolger, P. C., Kremser, J., & Walker, H. (2019). Detention or diversion? The influence of training and education on school police officer discretion. Policing: An International Journal, 42(2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2018-0007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewster, D., & Jones, R. (2019). Distinctly divergent or hanging onto English coat-tails? Drug policy in post-devolution Wales. Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 19(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818757834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. (1979). The punitive city: notes on the dispersal of social control. Journal of Contemporary Crises, 3(4), 339–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00729115
   Google Scholar
• Connor, M., Green, G., Thomas, N., Sondhi, A., & Pevalin, D. (2020). Drug testing on arrest-who benefits? Health & Justice, 8(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0103-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (2001). Prosecution Code. Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Csete, J., Kamarulzaman, A., Kazatchkine, M., Altice, F., Balicki, M., Buxton, J., Cepeda, J., Comfort, M., Goosby, E., Goulão, J., Hart, C., Kerr, T., Lajous, A. M., Lewis, S., Martin, N., Mejía, D., Camacho, A., Mathieson, D., Obot, I., … Beyrer, C. (2016). Public health and international drug policy. The Lancet, 387(10026), 1427–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00619-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wree, E., De Ruyver, B., Verpoest, K., & Colman, C. (2008). All in favour? Attitudes of stakeholders and drug users towards judicial alternatives. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 14(4), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-008-9083-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eastwood, N., Fox, E., & Rosmarin, A. (2016). A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalisation Across the Globe. Release.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E., & Sonenshein, S. (2016). Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Briarcliff.
   Google Scholar
• Eley, S., Gallop, K., McIvor, G., Morgan, K., & Yates, R. (2002). Drug treatment and testing orders: Evaluation of the Scottish pilots. Scottish Executive Social Research.
   Google Scholar
• European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2015). Alternatives to punishment for drug using offenders. Publications office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fordham, A., & Haase, H. (2018). The 2016 UNGASS on drugs: A catalyst for the drug policy reform movement collapse of the global order on drugs: From UNGASS 2016 to Review 2019 (pp. 21–47). Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Glasgow Community Justice Authority. (2017). A summary of community options: Alternatives to prosecution, alternatives to remand and alternatives to custody. Community Justice Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (2002). ‘Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Great Britain’ in Fischer (2002) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hayhurst, K. P., Leitner, M., Davies, L., Millar, T., Jones, A., Flentje, R., & King, C. (2017). The effectiveness of diversion programmes for offenders using Class A drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 26(2), 113–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, C., & Ritter, A. (2008). A summary of diversion programs for drug and drug-related offenders in Australia. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• 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. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, C., Stevens, A., Hulme, S., & Cassidy, R. (2019a). Depenalization, diversion and decriminalisation: A realist review of programme theory of alternatives to criminalization for simple drug possession. European Journal of Criminology (1), 26.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, C., Stevens, A., Hulme, S., & Cassidy, R. (2019b). Review of approaches taken in Ireland and in other jurisdictions to simple possession drug offences. A report for the Irish. Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Health Kent.
   Google Scholar
• Jafari, S., Mathias, R., Joe, R. S., Baharlou, S., & Nasr, A. (2015). Effect of law enforcement on drug abuse: a comparison of substance use in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. Journal of Substance Use, 20(4), 295–300. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2014.900579
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jelsma, M. (2017). UNGASS 2016: Prospects for treaty reform and UN system-wide coherence on drug policy. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0021
   Google Scholar
• Keating, M., Stevenson, L., Cairney, P., & Taylor, K. (2003). Does devolution make a difference? Legislative output and policy divergence in Scotland. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9(3), 110–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357233042000246882
   Google Scholar
• Klein, A., & Stothard, B. (2018). Collapse of the global order on drugs: From UNGASS 2016 to review 2019. Emerald.
   Google Scholar
• Kopak, A. M., & Frost, G. A. (2017). Correlates of program success and recidivism among participants in an adult pre-arrest diversion program. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9390-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruithof, K., Davies, M., Disley, E., Strang, L., & Ito, K. (2016). Study on alternatives to coercive sanctions as response to drug law offences and drug-related crimes. European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster, K., Santana, L., Madden, A., & Ritter, A. (2015). Stigma and subjectivities: Examining the textured relationship between lived experience and opinions about drug policy among people who inject drugs. Journal of Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 22(3), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2014.970516
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malloch, M. (2013). Changing focus: ‘drug-related crime’ and the criminological imagination. In A. Barton, K. Corteen, D. Scott, and D. Whyte (Eds.), Expanding the criminological imagination (pp. 128–147). Willan.
   Google Scholar
• Malloch, M., & McIvor, G. (2013). Criminal justice responses to drug related crime in Scotland. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 24(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConnell, A. (2018). Rethinking wicked problems as political problems and policy problems. Policy Politics, 46(1), 165–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna, D., Murphy, H., Rosenbrier, C., Soulsby, A., Lyall, A., Keown, P., & McKinnon, I. (2018). Referrals to a mental health criminal justice Liaison and diversion team in the North East of England. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 30(2), 301–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McSweeney, T., Hughes, C., & Ritter, A. (2018). The impact of compliance with a compulsory model of drug diversion on treatment engagement and reoffending. Journal of Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 25(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2016.1219695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peršak, N. (2016). Whose claim is legitimate anyway? Negotiating power in inter-agency collaboration. In N. Persak (Ed.), Legitimacy and trust in criminal law, policy and justice (pp. 119–138). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2005). Rehabilitation, crime and justice. Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Razmadze, M., Otiashvili, D., Balanchivadze, N., & Tabatadze, M. (2015). Alternatives to incarceration for drug-related offences. Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
   Google Scholar
• Sanchéz-Avilés, C., & Ditrych, O. (2018). The global drug prohibition regime: prospects for stability and change in an increasingly less prohibitionist world. International Politics, 55(3–4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-017-0081-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlesinger, T. (2018). Decriminalizing racialized youth through juvenile diversion. The Future of Children, 28(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2018.0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scottish Government (2018). Rights, respect and recovery: alcohol and drug treatment strategy. Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government (2019a). Drug deaths task force. Retrieved 2019, from https://www.gov.scot/groups/drug-deaths-task-force/
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government (2019b). Protecting Scotland’s future: The goverment’s programme for Scotland 2019–2020. The Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Sentencing Council (2018). Principles and purposes of sentencing: Sentencing guideline. Scottish Sentencing Council.
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, L., & Ritchie, J. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. Bryman and B. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 187–208). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Spyt, W., Barnham, L., & Kew, J. (2019). Diversion: Going soft on drugs? Thames Valley Police Journal, 4(1), 44–68.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, A. (2007). When two dark figures collide: Evidence and discourse on drug-related crime. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018307072208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, A. (2010). Drugs, crime and public health: The political economy of drug policy. Routledge-Cavendish.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, A., & Hughes, C. (2016). Decriminalisation and public health: The Portuguese approach to drug policy. Mouvements (Paris), 356, 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• UK Parliament. (2019a). Drugs policy inquiry. Retrieved 2019, from, https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/health-and-social-care-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/drugs-policy-inquiry-17-19/
   Google Scholar
• UK Parliament. (2019b). Problem drug use in Scotland inquiry. Retrieved 2019, from, https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/scottish-affairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/problem-drug-use-scotland-17-19/
   Google Scholar
• UK Parliament. (2019c). Written evidence - letter from the lord advocate for Scotland to The Scottish Affairs Committee. UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/scottish-affairs/Correspondence/2017-2019/Written-Evidence-from-the-Crown-Office-and-Procurator-Fiscal-Service.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Volkow, N. D., Poznyak, V., Saxena, S., & Gerra, G. (2017). Drug use disorders: Impact of a public health rather than a criminal justice approach. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 16(2), 213–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weir, K., Routledge, G., & Kilili, S. (2019). Checkpoint: An innovative programme to navigate people away from the cycle of reoffending: Implementation phase evaluation. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, (15). https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz015
   Google Scholar
• Worden, R. E., & McLean, S. J. (2018). Discretion and diversion in Albany’s LEAD program. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(6–7), 584–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417723960
   Google Scholar