DRUG TREATMENT COURTS—A VIABLE OPTION FOR CANADA? SENTENCING ISSUES AND PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THE TORONTO COURT

REFERENCES

• O'Neil P. Funding Cleared for B.C. Drug Court. The Vancouver Sun. 2001; February 20: B5
   Google Scholar
• Brochu S. Estimating the costs of drug-related crime. 2nd International Symposium on the Social and Economic Costs of Substance Abuse, Montebello, Quebec, 1995
   Google Scholar
• Correctional Services Canada. Final Report of the Working Group on Reducing Addictions. Correctional Services Canada, , Ottawa 1990
   Google Scholar
• Fischer B., Medved W., Kirst M., Rehm J., Gliksman L. Illicit Opiates and Crime: Results of an Untreated User Cohort in Toronto. Can. J. Criminology 2001; 43(2)197–217
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken J., Chaiken M. Drugs and Predatory Crime. Drugs and Crime, M. Tonry, J. Wilson. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1990
   Google Scholar
• Johnson B., Goldstein P., Preble E., Schmeidler J., Lipton D.S., Spunt B., Miller T. Taking Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by Heroin Abusers. Lexington Books, Lexington, KY 1985
   Google Scholar
• Understanding and Preventing Violence, A.J. Reiss, Jr., J.A.S. Roth. National Academy Press, Washington, DC 1993
   Google Scholar
• Webster R. The Courting Game: A Handbook for Drug Service Intervention in a Court Setting. Standing Conference on Drug Abuse, London, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein P.J. The Drugs/Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework. J. Drug Issues 1985; 493–505, Fall
   Google Scholar
• Speckart G., Anglin M.D. Narcotics Use and Crime: A Casual Modelling Approach. J. Quant. Criminology 1986; 2: 3–28
   Google Scholar
• Federal, Provincial, Territorial Governments. Reducing the Harm Associated with Injection Drug Use in Canada. Working Document for Consultation, F/P/T Committees on Population Health, Alcohol and Other Drug Issues, Advisory Committee on AIDS, Heads of Corrections Working Group on HIV/AIDS, February, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Inciardi J.A. The Harm Reduction Roles of the American Criminal Justice System. Harm Reduction: National and International Perspectives, J.A. Inciardi, L.D. Harrison. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 2000
   Google Scholar
• Parker R.N., Auerhahn K. Alcohol, rugs and Violence. Ann. Rev. Socio. 1998; 24: 291–311
   Google Scholar
• Nurco D., Hanlon T., Kinlock T., Duszynski K. Differential Criminal Patterns of Narcotic Addicts Over an Addiction Career. Criminology 1988; 26: 407–423
   Google Scholar
• Swartz J. TASC—The Next 20 years: Extending, efining, and Assessing the Model. Drug Treat. Crim. Justice 1993; 27: 127–148
   Google Scholar
• Lipton D.S. The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision. U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1995
   Google Scholar
• Skolnik J.H. Rethinking the Drug Problem. Drugs, Crime and Justice, L.K. Gaines, P.B. Kraska. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL 1997
   Google Scholar
• Gardner D. Europe Leading the Way to Smarter Drug Laws: Part One. Ottawa Citizen 2000; September 15: A5
   Google Scholar
• Caulkins J., Rydell C., Schwabe W., Chiesa J. Are Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Cost-Effective?. Corr. Manage. Q. 1998; 2: 62–73
   Google Scholar
• Wild T.C. Compulsory Substance Abuse Treatment and Harm Reduction: a Critical Analysis. Substance Use Misuse 1999; 34: 83–102
   Google Scholar
• Hora P.F., Schma W.G., Rosenthal J.T.A. 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
• Wenzel S., Longshore D., Turner S. Drug Courts: A Bridge Between Criminal Justice and Health Services. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology Conference, Toronto, November, 17–201999
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman M.B. The Drug Court Scandal. North Carolina Law Rev. 2000; 78: 1437–1534
   Google Scholar
• Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Drug Treatment Options for the Justice System, Statement of Steven Belenko, Ph.D. Oversight Hearing. Committee on Government Reform. United States House of Representatives: Washington, DC, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn J.R., Albonetti C.A. Recidivism Among Drug Offenders: A Survival Analysis of the Effects of Offender Characteristics, ype of Offense and Two Types of Intervention. J. Quant. Criminology 1994; 10: 159–179
   Google Scholar
• Goldcamp J.S., White M.D., Robinson J. Do Drug Courts Work? Getting Inside the Drug Court Black Box. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, November, 15–182000
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America's Prison Population. National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), Columbia University, New York 1998
   Google Scholar
• Deschenes E.P., Petersen R.D. Experimenting with the Drug Court Model: Implementation and Change in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation, W. Clinton Terry, III. Drug, Health and Social Policy Series, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA 1999; Volume 7
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Probation and Parole Training—Criminal Code Amendment. North Bay, Ontario 1996
   Google Scholar
• Erickson P.G., Haans D.L. Drug War, Canadian style. Drug War, American Style: The Internationalization of Failed Policy and Its Alternatives, J. Gerber, E.L. Jensen. Garland, New York 2001
   Google Scholar
• One major difference between Canada and the United States is the way the latter treats possession offenses. In Canada, even the worst offender on a possession charge would never get more than 90 days, and the majority, if they have a record, get a couple of days in jail. This is very different from the United States where there is a threat of very high prison sentences for mere possessors (Prior, personal communication, 2000).
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Adult Criminal Court Shelf Tables, 1994–1999. Statistics Canada, , Ottawa 2000
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Drug Offense Data—1999/2000. North Bay, Ontario 2000
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. Adult Criminal Court Data Tables 1998/99. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, , Ottawa 2000
   Google Scholar
• Carceral sentences of two years and over are served in federal correctional institutions.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson P.G. Recent Trends in Canadian Drug Policy: the Decline and Resurgence of Prohibitionism. Daedalus 1992; 121: 239–267
   Google Scholar
• Tonry M. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment in America. Oxford University Press, New York 1995
   Google Scholar
• Chin V., Dandurand Y., Plecas D., Segger T. The Criminal Justice Response to Marijuana Growing Operations in B.C. International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy: Vancouver, 2000
   Google Scholar
• Schneider W. Vancouver, Downtown Eastside: Looking for Solutions. Paper presented at the Harm Reduction Conference, Green College, Vancouver. September, 22–232000. University of British Columbia
   Google Scholar
• Reinarman C., Levine H.G. Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. University of California Press, Berkeley 1997
   Google Scholar
• Makkai T. The Emergence of Drug Courts in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra 2001
   Google Scholar
• Office of Justice Programs. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1997
   Google Scholar
• Gliksman L., La Prairie C., Erickson P., Wall R., Minghao H., Luedtke L., Toombs S. The Toronto Drug Treatment Court: A One-Year Summary: December 1, 1998—December 31, 1999. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Toronto, 2000
   Google Scholar
• These instruments include application, first appearance, and monitoring forms; progress reports; court liaison assessment forms; urine screens; general well-being tests, as well as information from Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) and Level 2 reports
   Google Scholar
• Although the evaluation started in April 1999, the DTC actually began in December 1998. The evaluation does not include clients who entered the program prior to April, and if it did there would be more graduates from the program
   Google Scholar
• Makkai T., Feather M. Drug Use Monitoring in Australia (DUMA): Preliminary Results from the Southport Site, 1999. Trends Issues Crime Crim. Justice 1999; 142
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell L., Deschenes E. P. In the Eyes of the Beholder: Participant Perceptions of a Drug Court Program. Law Society 2001, in press
   Google Scholar
• Harrell A.V., Mitchell R.J., Marlowe D. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. The Use and Impact of Sanctions in Drug Intervention Programs for Offenders, San Francisco, November, 15–182000
   Google Scholar
• The mean number of rewards given the Experimental group was 4.6, and commendations was 11.95. The mean of sanctions, admonishments, and warnings for the same group were 3.82, 5.22, and 4.06, respectively. The mean number of jail terms imposed on the Experimental group was 1.2.
   Google Scholar
• Interestingly, people who had withdrawn or had been expelled from the program were 3.5 times more likely to have had a record under the Young Offenders Act. In addition, people who were still in the program were about one-fifth as likely to re-offend as those who had been expelled or had withdrawn from the program
   Google Scholar
• There is no significant difference among any of the groups in the age of first involvement in the criminal justice system
   Google Scholar
• The single most frequent admitting charge was Trafficking for 51%, followed by Possession of a Narcotic for 37.9%, Property for 24%, Administration of Justice (breaches, fail to appear etc.) for 16.7%, Other Criminal Code for 7.1%, Communication for Purposes of Prostitution for 3.5%, and Violent for 2.5%
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), Columbia University, New York 1999
   Google Scholar
• There were no significant differences between the On-going and Expelled groups for mean number of re-offense charges in any of the offense categories
   Google Scholar
• Gottfredson & Exum 2000
   Google Scholar
• The total is greater than 100 because people could score more than one response.
   Google Scholar
• American University. Summary Assessment of the Drug Court Experience. U.S. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1997
   Google Scholar
• The expelled/withdrew grouping exhibited substantially poorer compliance during the first three months, which became significantly worse over the remaining period
   Google Scholar
• American University. Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts. Drug Courts Program Office, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1998
   Google Scholar
• Self-rated health (SRH) is assessed by having participants rate their health as anchored between the “best” (100) and the “worst” (0) imaginable health states
   Google Scholar
• This figure is higher than for U.S. programs, which the American University review[59] puts at 41%
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. Illicit Drugs and Crime in Canada. Juristat. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, , Ottawa 1999; Volume 19, Number 1
   Google Scholar
• Brochu S. Drogue & Criminalite: Une Relation Complexe. Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal, Montreal 1995
   Google Scholar
• The Toronto DTC actually began prior to the evaluation, December 1, 1998, and had a number of participants who were not part of the evaluation, and who have graduated from the program. Their numbers are not included in the figure reported here
   Google Scholar