Introduction to Drug Courts

  • Glade F. Roper


To understand the nature and purpose of drug courts, it is important to know the events and policy actions that led to the movement and the philosophical basis behind it. This chapter discusses the history of the drug abuse problem in the United States, the effects of the drug problem on the criminal justice system, and the judicial response. It explores the concept and principles behind drug courts, and looks at the Tulare County, California, program and lessons learned in starting a drug court.


Criminal Justice System Illegal Drug Treatment Provider Addiction Treatment Drug Court 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jonnes J. Hep-Cats, Narcs, and Pipe Dreams: A History of America’s Romance With Illegal Drugs. New York: Scribner; 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    White WL. Slaying the Dragon: A History of Addiction Treatment and Recovery in America. Bloomington, IL: Chestnut Health System/Lighthouse Institute; 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Inaba DS, Cohen WE. Uppers, Downers, and All Arounders: Physical and Mental Effects of Psychoactive Drugs. Ashland, OR: CNS Publications; 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalivas PW, Duffy P, DuMars LA, Skinner C. Behavioral and neurochemical effects of acute and daily cocaine administration in rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1088;245(2):485–492.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Department of Justice: Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice; 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hora PF, Schma WG, Rosenthal JTA. Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment 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
  7. 7.
    Lynch T. War no more. National Review February 5, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckley WF. The war on drugs is lost. National Review February 12, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Special Committee on Drugs and Law. A Wiser Course: Ending Drug Prohibition. New York: Association of the Bar of the City of New York; 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caher J. Federal judge blasts mandatory minimal sentences. New York Law Journal January 20, 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker FS, Murphy KM, Grossman M. The Economic Theory of Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs. NBER working paper no. 10976. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2004.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Department of Justice. Drug and Crime Facts, 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huddleston CW, Freeman-Wilson K, Marlow DB, Roussel A. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Programs in the United States. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mumola CJ. Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belenko S. Research on drug courts: a critical review. Natl Drug Court Rev 1998;1(1):1–42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belenko S. Research on drug courts: a critical review. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University; 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, The Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998, Chapter 1007, Statues of 1998, Final Report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs; 2002.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Institute of Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide. Washington, DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse; 1999Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dearing RL, Stuewig J, Tangney JP. The secret message of shame. Addict Behav 2005;30(7):1392–1404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leshner AI. The Essence of Drug Addiction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse; 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Services Outcomes Research Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2004.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tucker-Ladd CE. Psychological Self-Help. Cleveland, OH: Mental Health Net, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts, 2004 Data. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, August 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bureau of the United States Census. 2000 United States Census. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lessenger JE, Lessenger LH, Lessenger EW. An outcome analysis of drug court in Tulare County, California. Visalia, CA: Tulare County Superior Court, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glade F. Roper
    • 1
  1. 1.Tulare County, PortervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations