A DOZEN YEARS OF DRUG TREATMENT COURTS: UNCOVERING OUR THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MAINSTREAM PARADIGM

REFERENCES

• Hora P., Schma W., Rosental J. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System's Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America. Notre Dame Law Rev. 1999; 74(2)439–537
   Google Scholar
• Number of New Commitments to State Prisons for Drug Offenses Has Increased Dramatically Since 1980; May be Leveling Off, 9 CESAR FAX 42, University of Maryland, College Park (Oct. 23, 2000). On Valentine's Day, 2000, we reached the benchmark of two million people behind bars. With 5% of the world's population, the United States has 25% of the world's prisoners. Newsweek 2000; February 28: 54
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield F. States Ease Laws on Time in Prison. The New York Times 2001; September 2: 1, 16, CL (51,864)
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Justice Statistics. Profile of jail inmates, 1996. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC, 1998
   Google Scholar
• See, e.g., “Treating the Brain in Drug Abuse,” 15 NIDA Notes 4 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Winick B., Wexler D. Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Drug Treatment Courts: A Symbiotic Relationship. Principles of Addiction Medicine, 3rd Ed., A.W. Graham, T.K. Schultz. American Society of Addiction Medicine, Chevy Chase, MD, in press
   Google Scholar
• This is not in any way meant to suggest no one was captivated intellectually by the drug treatment court approach; the opposite is true. Austin, TX District Attorney Ronnie Earle, Judges Tom Merrigan in Orange MA and John Parnham in Pensacola FL were all early “movers” who combined the practical and intellectual aspects of drug treatment courts. They were not, however, familiar with the Therapeutic Jurisprudence movement in the early days of drug treatment courts.
   Google Scholar
• Slobogin C. Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Five Dilemmas to Ponder. Law in a Therapeutic Key, D. Wexler, B. Winick. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC 1996
   Google Scholar
• Wexler D., Winick B. Therapeutic Jurisprudence as a New Approach to Mental Health Law Policy Analysis and Research. Univ. Miami Law Rev. 1991; 45: 979–1004
   Google Scholar
• Wexler D. Therapeutic jurisprudence: an overview, www.therapeuticjurisprudence.org.
   Google Scholar
• Casey P., Rottman D., Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Courts http://www.ncsc.dni.us/icm/distance/therapeutic/2000_08/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Daicoff S. The Role of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Comprehensive Law Movement. Practicing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Law as a Healing Profession, D.B. Wexler, B.J. Winick. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC 2001
   Google Scholar
• It was brilliant serendipity that the Hon. William G. Meyer (Ret.) of the Denver CO drug treatment court and his committee proposed principles that fit so well with the therapeutic jurisprudential lens.
   Google Scholar
• Hora P., Schma W. Legal Strategy. Addiction Intervention: Strategies to Motivate Treatment-Seeking Behavior, R.K. White, D.G. Wright. The Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY 1998
   Google Scholar
• Quinn M. Whose Team Am I On Anyway? Musings of a Public Defender About Drug Treatment Court Practice. NY Univ. Review Law Social Change 2000–2001; 26(1&2)37–75
   Google Scholar
• J. Psychoact. Drugs 2000; 32: 177–181, The Hayward Drug Treatment Court, Alameda County Superior Court, CA is a research site for the MATRIX project. “[O]riginally referred to as the neurobehavioral model, [MATRIX] is an outpatient treatment approach…[which] integrates a number of specific strategies including relapse prevention, motivational interviewing, psychoeducation, family therapy, and 12-Step program involvement.” Treatment for Stimulant Use Disorders, Treatment Improvement Protocol #33, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, 1999; 41. See, also, Freese, Thomas, E., et al., Methamphetamine Abuse: Issues for Special Populations
   Google Scholar
• See, e.g., www.thewhizzinator.com or type “urine test” into any search engine on the World Wide Web to find freeze dried urine, adulterants, and other products to prevent discovery of drug use when required to take a urine test. Drug users also have an entire folklore on how to “get over” a test from drinking pickle juice to taking Golden Seal found at the health food store.
   Google Scholar
• Marlow D., Kirby K. Effective Use of Sanctions in Drug Courts: Lessons from Behavioral Research. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; II(1)1–31
   Google Scholar
• Chase D., Hora P. The Implications of Therapeutic Jurisprudence for Judicial Satisfaction. Court Rev. 2000; 37(1)12–20, also see http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr37/cr37-1/CR9ChaseHora.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. R. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1998; 1(1)1–42
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. R. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 1999; 2(1)1–58
   Google Scholar
• Robinson K. D. Reports on Recent Drug Court Research. National Drug Court Inst. Rev. 2000; 3(1)121–134
   Google Scholar
• See http://www.nadcp.org/mentorcourt.
   Google Scholar
• TIPs may be viewed online at http://hstat.nim.nih.gov (at the HSTAT collections search, enter TIPS to view material)
   Google Scholar
• The 1998 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM) Report shows 67% of women arrested in New York City tested positive for cocaine and one third of both male and female arrestees in San Diego tested positive for methamphetamine. (ADAM) sites are found in 35 cities for adults and at 13 sites for juveniles. Plans to expand the adult sites by 15 additional cities are underway. (A complete list of cities may be found at the ADAM web site located at www.adam-nij.net.) In these cities, once a quarter for one week, all arrestees are drug tested with an EMIT™ test. The panel includes amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, marijuana, methadone, methaqualone, opiates, PCP and propoxyphene. For cases in which a specimen screens positive for amphetamine, it is subjected to confirmation testing to detect whether a specific form of amphetamine or methamphetamine was used. This snapshot of recent drug use (excluding alcohol) by arrestees is helpful to understand the extent of the drug problem in the local criminal justice setting.
   Google Scholar
• Winick B. Harnessing the Power of the Bet: Wagering with the Government as a Mechanism for Social and Individual Change. Univ. Miami Law Rev. 1991; 45: 737–814
   Google Scholar
• Treatment Services in Adult Drug Courts. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Program Office: Washington, DC, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Kaye J.S. Making the Case for Hands-On Courts. Newsweek 1999, October 11
   Google Scholar
• Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Program Office: Washington, DC, 1997
   Google Scholar
• For a copy of the full text, see, http://cosca.ncsc.dni.us/resolutionproblemsolvingcts.html (last visited May 25, 2001).
   Google Scholar
• Americal Bar Association October 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Allen M. Bush Suggests Shift in Drug Strategy. The Washington Post 2001; May 10: A06
   Google Scholar
• Letter from Karen Freeman-Wilson, Chief Executive Officer. National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Aug. 21, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Nolan J. Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 2001
   Google Scholar
• Boldt R. Rehabilitative Punishment and the Drug Treatment Court Movement. Washington Law Quart. 1998; 76: 1205–1306
   Google Scholar