Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Alternative sanctions for drug users: fruitless efforts or miracle solution?

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In most Western European countries, including Belgium, judicial alternative sanctions are increasingly being used for drug users. Because no study into the effectiveness of Belgian judicial alternatives for drug users has yet been carried out, this became the objective of the current research. The design of this study comprises a pre and post measurement of the criminal activity, drug use and situation in different spheres of life of 565 drug-dependent offenders. Two conclusions can be drawn. First, after an alternative sanction or measure is imposed, there is a reduction in the criminal activity of the offender. Second, this crime reduction goes hand in hand with a progress in several relevant life spheres.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This research was funded by the Belgian Federal Science Policy and is a part of the Research programme in support of the federal drugs policy document.

  2. In Belgium several types of alternative measures and sanctions exist. At every level of the criminal justice system the possibility exists to divert offenders (in this case drug users) away from the traditional judicial pathway. At the level of the public prosecutor, transaction and mediation in criminal cases are the main alternative measures. Praetorian probation is the third possibility at this level, but this modality of alternative measure does not have a legal framework. At sentencing level two forms of probation allow for the abandonment of traditional sanctions, i.e. a probation order without conviction and a probation order with delay of the execution of the punishment. In the execution of sentences as well, there is the possibility to grant alternatives to imprisonment. Prisoners can be provisionally or conditionally released, and thus shorten their imprisonment by accepting to comply with certain conditions. Also, prison sentences can be served under electronic surveillance.

  3. Recidivism studies generally investigate whether or not persons have been arrested or convicted after a certain judicial intervention. On the basis thereof, arrest and reconviction rates are calculated. (see: [13]. These ‘rates’ are considered to be indicators of the prevalence of recidivism. Next to this, also the number of times a person was arrested/convicted is used as an indicator of recidivism. In some studies, the type of offence leading to the arrest or conviction is taken into account. (see: [4, 5]).

  4. Kyvsgaard opted for a similar operationalisation. Cf. [ 8 ].

  5. Ruefli and Rogers, for instance [9], opted to avoid subjectivity by letting drug users themselves define progress. In EuropASI, objective criteria are sought to determine whether someone has improved in the life spheres studied. The seriousness of problems is expressed in scores. Dutch studies often confine themselves to postulating the ‘desired’ situations and indicating whether or not the clients achieved it (e.g. [10].

  6. Because progress in life spheres is by definition a dynamic variable, we used a lengthy follow-up period and large assessment categories in order to facilitate the allocation of the research subjects to the categories.

  7. Justice houses are those offices responsible for the follow-up of offenders who have been conditionally sentenced or conditionally released.

  8. If necessary, e.g. because of attrition, the sampling process was repeated in order to reach the postulated number of files.

  9. Even better than the quasi-experimental design are the level 4 design in which the control for other variables that influence recidivism is added to the quasi-experimental design and the level 5 design that is characterised by a random assignation of research units to experimental and control conditions.

  10. Previously existing trends persist.

  11. In a pre-post design the tendency is found that the follow-up values are again situated closer to the mean, because random error in the pre-measurement possibly caused a proportion of the extreme values.

  12. Improvement occurs spontaneously and does not stem from the judicial intervention.

  13. The rate is calculated by dividing the number of charges/convictions through the time span of the period concerned. The value that is found is multiplied by 365. The rate thus reflects the average number of charges/convictions per year. The reference period for the first rate starts with the first charge and ends when the judicial alternative is granted. The reference period for the second charge starts with the judicial alternative and lasts until the end of the follow-up period of five years.

  14. In the United States drug (treatment) courts were established in order to deal with the problems that had arisen following the increasing number of drug cases. Individuals who have committed drug related crime can be brought before the drug court. Certain offenders are however excluded, e.g. violent offenders. The drug court program implies the start of interventions aimed at the reduction of drug use and crime and based on regular contacts with the drug court, drug testing and treatment. See: [3].

  15. The desired situation is always the situation in which there is no need for treatment or guidance: having a steady job, a permanent place to live, sufficient supportive social and familial relationships and meaningful leisure-time activities.

References

  1. Inciardi, J., Martin, S., & Butzin, C. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Piquero, N. (2003). A recidivism analysis of Maryland’s community probation program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stanford, J., & Arrigo, B. (2005). Lifting the Cover on Drug Courts: evaluation finding and policy concerns. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 3, 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson, D., & Fowles, T. (2004). Drug treatment and testing orders: reconviction rates. The Howard Journal, 43, 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldkamp, J., White, M., & Robinson, J. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 27–72.

  6. Peersen, M. (2004). Predicting re-offending: a 5-year prospective study on Icelandic prison inmates. Psychology, Crime and Law, 197–204.

  7. Wartna B, Nijssen L. National studies on recidivism: an inventory of large-scale recidivism research in 33 European Countries. Memorandum 2006-2, WODC.

  8. Kyvsgaard, B. (2003). The criminal career. Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ruefli, T., & Rogers, S. (2004). How do drug users define their progress in harm reduction programs? Qualitative research to develop user-generated outcomes. Harm Reduction Journal.

  10. Bieleman, B. e.a. (2002). Opgevangen onder drang. Groningen, Intraval.

  11. Krenz, S. (2004). French version of the addiction severity index (5th edn.): validity and reliability among Swiss opiate-dependent patients. European Addiction Research, 173–179.

  12. Swanborn, P. (1999). Evalueren. Amsterdam: Boom.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sherman, L. (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Beyens, K. (2000). Straffen als sociale praktijk. Brussel: VUB.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vander Laenen, F. (2004). De nieuwe Ministeriële Omzendbrief voor druggebruikers. Het vervolgingsbeleid laat er zich niet door leiden. Panopticon, 25(5), 9–30.

  16. Kyvsgaard, B. (2000). Supervision of offenders: can an old-fashioned service system be of any service in the case of present-day offenders. Journal of Scandinavian studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 1, 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zanis, D. e.a. (2003). The effectiveness of early parole to substance abuse treatment facilities on 24-month criminal recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 223–235.

  18. Inciardi, J. (2004). Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  19. MackKenzie, D. (2002). The impact of formal and informal social controls on the criminal activities of probationers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 243–276.

  20. King, R., & Wincup, E. (2008). Doing research on crime and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wild, T., Roberts, A., & Cooper, E. (2002). Compulsory substance abuse treatment: An overview of recent findings and issues. European Addiction Research, 84–93.

  22. Spohn, C. e.a. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: the results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 149–176.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hepburn, J., & Griffin, M. (2004). The effect of social bonds on successful adjustment to probation: an event history analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 46–75.

  24. De Li, S., & Layton MacKenzie, D. (2003). The gendered effects of adult social bonds on the criminal activities of probationers. Criminal Justice Review, 28(2), 278–298.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eveline De Wree.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Wree, E., Pauwels, L., Colman, C. et al. Alternative sanctions for drug users: fruitless efforts or miracle solution?. Crime Law Soc Change 52, 513–525 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9206-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-009-9206-0

Keywords

Navigation