Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Drug Policy Analysis

A Journal of Substance Abuse Control Policy

Ed. by Kleiman, Mark / Kilmer, Beau

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 2.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.140
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.695

Online
ISSN
1941-2851
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Smart Justice: A New Paradigm for Dealing with Offenders

Kevin Sabet / Stephen Talpins / Matthew Dunagan / Erin Holmes
Published Online: 2013-08-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2012-0004

Abstract

Given the size and cost of the American criminal justice system, new ways of thinking about community corrections are necessary to both reduce the economic impact and public safety consequences of offenders cycling in and out of prison and jail. Several new paradigms for dealing with offenders have recently emerged and are expanding throughout the United States. All of these approaches involve utilizing swift, certain, and modest sanctions, rather than random and severe sanctions, which is the status quo. This paper outlines the aforementioned approach by highlighting three such programs currently in existence in the United States. The paper ends with general guidelines for constructing similar cost-effective programs.

Keywords: HOPE; probation; drugs; drug-related crime; crime

References

  • Bulman, P. 2010. In Brief: Hawaii HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar

  • Carns, T. W., and S. Martin. 2011. Anchorage PACE: Probation Accountability with Certain Enforcement: A Preliminary Evaluation of the Anchorage Pilot PACE Project. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Judicial Council.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, C. S. 2003. “Drug Courts: Current Issues and Future Perspectives.” Substance Use and Misuse 38(11–13):1671–711.Google Scholar

  • DeMichele, M. T. 2007. “Probation and Parole’s Growing Caseloads and Workload Allocation: Strategies for Managerial Decision Making.” The American Probation & Parole Association.Google Scholar

  • DuPont, R. L. 2009. HOPE Probation: A Model That Can Be Implemented at Every Level of Government. Rockville, MD: Institute for Behavior and Health.Google Scholar

  • DuPont, R. L. 2010. “Is 24/7 Sobriety a Good Goal for Repeat Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Offenders?” Addiction 105:575–77.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • General Accounting Office. 2011. Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts. December 2011. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • Hawken, A. 2010a. “Behavioral Triage: A New Model for Identifying and Treating Substance-Abusing Offenders.” The Journal of Drug Policy Analysis 3(1):1–5.Google Scholar

  • Hawken, A. 2010b. “HOPE for Probation: How Hawaii Improved Behavior with High-Probability, Low-Severity Sanctions.” The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice 4(3):1–5.Google Scholar

  • Hawken, A., and M. Kleiman. 2009. Managing Drug Involved Probationers with Swift and Certain Sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar

  • Hawken, A., and M. Kleiman. 2011. Washington Intensive Supervision Program: Evaluation Report (DRAFT). Seattle, WA: City of Seattle.Google Scholar

  • Hollander-Blumoff, R. 2012. “Crime, Punishment, and the Psychology of Self-Control.” Emory Law Journal 61(501):2011–12.Google Scholar

  • Kilmer, B., Nancy Nicosia, Paul Heaton, and Greg Midgette. 2013. “Efficacy of Frequent Monitoring with Swift, Certain, and Modest Sanctions for Violations: Insights from South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Project.” American Journal of Public Health 103(1):e37–e43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • King, R. S., and J. Pasquarella. 2009. Drug Courts: A Review of the Evidence. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.Google Scholar

  • Kleiman, M. A. 2011. “Justice Reinvestment in Community Supervision.” Criminology and Public Policy 10(3):651–9.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kleiman, M. A., and A. Hawken. 2008. “Fixing the Parole System.” Issues in Science and Technology Summer 2008:45–52.Google Scholar

  • Loudenburg, R., G. Drube, and G. Leaonardson. 2011. South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program Evaluation Findings Report. Salem, SD: Mountain Plains Evaluation.Google Scholar

  • National Institute of Justice. 2010. “In Brief: Hawaii Hope.” NIJ Journal No. 266, June 2010.Google Scholar

  • O’Connell, D., C. A. Visher, S. Martin, L. Parker, and J. Brent. 2011. “Decide Your Time: Testing Deterrence Theory’s Certainty and Celerity Effects on Substance-Using Probationers.” Journal of Criminal Justice 39:261–7.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Office of Justice Programs. 2011. “Fiscal Year 2011 Grant Awards.” Retrieved January 2, 2011, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/11grantawards.htm

  • Tyler, T. R. 2006. “Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation.” Annual Review Psychology 57:375–400.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Urban Institute: Justice Policy Center. 2011. The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation. Urban Institute: Justice Policy Center: Washington, DC.Google Scholar

  • Wenzel, S. L., D. Longshore, S. Turner, and M. S. Ridgely. 2001. “Drug Courts: A Bridge between Criminal Justice and Health Services.” Journal of Criminal Justice 29:241–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-08-22

Published in Print: 2013-07-01


Citation Information: Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 1–17, ISSN (Online) 1941-2851, ISSN (Print) 2194-6337, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2012-0004.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in