Drug Courts pp 301-304 | Cite as

The Legal Basis for Drug Courts

  • Glade F. Roper


During the 1950s, rehabilitation was the primary goal of the criminal justice system (1). In the 1970s, the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs began to be questioned. By the 1980s, support for rehabilitation had eroded, and the focus shifted from rehabilitation of criminals to punishing and taking them off the street through incarceration (2). In 1990, an assistant warden of a California prison facility told the author that all hope of rehabilitation in the prisons had been abandoned and that the sole purpose of the Department of Corrections was to warehouse the inmates.


Legal Basis Drug Court Violent Offender Mental Health Court Federal Prison 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    American Correctional Association. Manual of Correctional Standards. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association, Committee for the Revision of the 1954 Manual; 1959.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gebelein RS. The Rebirth of Rehabilitation: Promise and Perils of Drug Courts. Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, No. 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farabee D, Prendergast M, Anglin MD. Effectiveness of Coerced Treatment of Drug-Abusing Offenders. Federal Probation 1998;62(1):3–10.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marlow DB. Effective Strategies for Intervening With Drug Abusing Offenders. Villanova Law Rev 2002: 14:989–1025.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Minnesota Statutes 2005 609.02 Subd. 15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393, 403 (1998).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Commonwealth v. LaPointe, 435 Mass. 455 (2001).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commonwealth v. Williams, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 331 (2004).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gershman BL. A Moral Standard for the Prosecutor’s Exercise of the Charging Discretion. Fordham Urban Law J 1993;20:513–530.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Virginia Statutes 18.2-254.1. Drug Treatment Court Act.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Idaho Statutes Title 19 Section 19-5606.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Illinois Statutes 730 ILCS 166 and 705 ILCS 410.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    California Health and Safety Code, Section 11970.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998, Chapter 1007, Statutes of 1998 Final Report. Sacramento, CA: The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts; 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Florida Drug Control Strategy 1999–2005. Tallahassee, FL: Office of Drug Control, Executive Office of the Governor, State of Florida; 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turner S, Longshore D, Wenzel S, et al. A National Evaluation of 14 Drug Courts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001. Available les1/nij/grants/191200.pdf.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lay DP. New York Times. November 18, 2004.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glade F. Roper
    • 1
  1. 1.Superior Court of CaliforniaTulare County, PortervilleUSA

Personalised recommendations