Drug Courts pp 337-354 | Cite as

Roadblocks to Success

  • Glade F. Roper


In many jurisdictions that consider the formation of a drug court, someone acts as a stumbling block. Frequently this has been the prosecutor, who is unaware of the true nature of a drug court and does not want to be considered soft on crime. Sometimes it is a law enforcement official who shares the same concerns. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors do not get their jobs by being perceived as lenient toward criminal offenders, including drug users and dealers. A sheriff may have an additional objection to the increased transport of prisoners that may be a consequence of operating a drug court.


Drug Court Defense Attorney Status Hearing Drug Offender Criminal Defendant 
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.
    Federal justice resigns, calling judicial system unjust. New York Times, July 24, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Hay B, Spier K. Litigation and settlement. In Newman P, ed. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law. New York: Macmillan; 1998: 442–451.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Judicial Council of California. Preserving Equal Access to Justice: Progress and Challenges of the California Judicial Branch. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Judicial Council of California. Trust and Confidence in the California Courts: A Survey of the Public and Attorneys. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts; 2005.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Nestler EJ, Malenka RC. The addicted brain. Sci Am 2004;290:78–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health. Prescription Drugs: Abuse and Addiction. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2005.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Griffin SJ. Lost to follow-up: the problem of defaulters from diabetes clinics. Diabet Med 1998;5(3):S14–S24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    Littenberg B, MacLean CD, Hurowitz L. The use of adherence aids by adults with diabetes: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam Pract 2006;7:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Institutes of Health. Drug Addiction Treatment Methods. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Longshore D, Hawken A, Urada D, Anglin MD. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Cost Analysis Report. Los Angeles: UCLA, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2006.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    California Penal Code Sections 1000 et. seq. and 1210.1.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Dickey WJ, Smith ME. Dangerous Opportunity: Five Futures for Community Corrections. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs; 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    United States Government Accountability Office. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Institute of Applied Research. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the St. Louis Adult Felony Drug Court. St. Louis: Institute of Applied Research; 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Rempel M, Fox-Kralstein D, Cissner A. Drug courts: an effective treatment alternative. Crim Justice 2004;19(2):5–11.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    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
  17. 18.
    Virginia Drug Court Association. Chief Justice Hassel’s Speech to the Virginia Drug Court Association. Richmond, VA: Virginia Drug Court Association; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    Everitt T. Drug Courts. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Resource Institute; 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Resolution 99-01 SPR on Drug Courts, March 13, 1999. National District Attorneys’ Association, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Drug Court May Stage Comeback. The Denver Post. November 13, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Turner S, Longshore D, Wenzel S, Deschenes E, Greenwood P, Fain T, et al. A decade of drug treatment court research. Subst Use Misuse 2002;37:1489–1527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 24.
    National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Press release: The National Drug Court Institute is created through a partnership between NADCP and ONDCP. Washington, DC: National Association of Drug Court Professionals; 1997.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