Sarah Vinyard

Professor Doran
ENC2135
18 October 2016
Annotated Bibliography
Birgden, Astrid. "A Compulsory Drug Treatment Program for Offenders in Australia:
Therapeutic Jurisprudence Implications." Thomas Jefferson Law Review. Vol 30.367.
2008. pp. 367-390.
This journal article discusses the 2006 bill in Australia that established a new drug
treatment program that offenders can partake instead of being incarcerated. This
treatment is abstinence-based. The offenders have to be eligible, as in they need to be
treatment ready (382). They must be motivated and actually want to get better. They
also need to have the mental ability to engage in the treatment. This article states that
community drug treatment in the community reduced drug-related offenders from reoffending by 12.4% (373). The whole idea of the community drug treatment is using the
law as a therapeutic agent (375). They still use consequences, but the focus of how to
handle drug offenders is different.
This is a credible source because it is reviewed by professionals from Thomas Jefferson
Law Review. I will use this source to compare Australias drug policies with the United
States policies to show that Australias is better. It is interesting to see how the drug
treatment works and the effects of the treatment.

Deng, Furjen, Michael S. Vaughn, and Lou-Jou Lee. "Drug Offenders in Taiwan and the United
States: A Cross-Cultural Analysis." Substance Use & Misuse. Vol. 36.12. 2001. pp. 16771697.
This article compares offender differences. It also compared Taiwan and the USA. In
Taiwan they have drug treatment programs. This article discusses how their programs and
the USAs programs affect arrests and incarceration rates. The article goes over
demographics, offender history of drug use and incarceration, family history, marital
status, education, etc.
This article might not be used in my paper because the points they make arent particular
to the USA. It is more focused on Taiwan. This is credible because their facts have been
reviewed since this is a scholarly journal article. I could possibly use some of the facts
and statistics they provide.
Exum, Jelani Jefferson. "Sentencing, Drugs, and Prisons: A Lesson from Ohio." University of
Toledo Law Review. Vol. 42. 2011. Pp. 881-889.
This article discusses how prison overcrowding is a problem. Over 2 million people in
the US are in prisons. The US number one in the world for incarceration rates, but whats
worse is that drug offenders make up most of these numbers. In 2009, states spent a total
of $52.3 billion on prisons, and even with those numbers not many states are discussing
reforms. Of the 2008 Ohio prison commitments, 35% were fourth and fifth degree drug
offendersthe single largest category of low-level offenders (885). Legislatures dont
want to appear soft on crime so they arent changing anything. Mandatory minimum
sentencing seems tough on crime, but is costing money.

This article is useful for my paper because it proves the point I am trying to make. In the
USA, too many people are in jail when they should be getting help. This article shows
how overcrowded and cast damaging prisons are. I will use a lot of information from this
article in my paper.
Gottfredson, Denise C., Brook W. Kearly, Stacy S. Najaka, Carlos M. Rocha. How Drug
Treatment Courts Work. University of Maryland, College Park. Sage Publications. Vol.
44.1. 2007. pp. 3-35.
Hepburn, John R. Recidivism Among Drug Offenders Following Exposure to Treatment.
Arizona State University. June 2005. pp. 237-259.
This article discusses recidivism patterns of drug offenders. It points out that areas with
drug treatment programs have declined in drug-related crimes. Also, it is calculated that
for every $1 spent on publicly funded programs in California, more than $11 was saved
in the costs of arrest and prosecutions, losses resulting from property crimes, and medical
expenses for drug addiction (239). This article shows both negative and positive aspects
of both incarceration and drug treatment programs.
This source is credible because it comes from an educated source. It is published through
Arizona State University so it should be accurate. I will use this article to discuss pros
and cons about drug treatment programs, as well as including statistics for my arguments.
Hser, Yih-Ing, Cheryl Teruya, Alison H. Brown, David Huang. "Impact of California's
Proposition 36 on the Drug Treatment System: Treatment Capacity and Displacement."
American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 97.1. 2007. pp. 104-109.

This article describes The California Proposition 36 in much detail. It provides results
from the proposition. For example, is gives statistics on how many offenders came back
and the numbers overall increased over the years. This article also discusses how the
program will creat more jobs if it is allowed to expand. They discussed staff capacity and
service capacity.
I will use this in my paper when giving an example of how treatment programs work in
the USA. This source is reliable because it comes from official studies for the California
treatment program. I enjoy how the article discusses the possibilities of expansion and the
benefits of the program.
Lim, Jillian Rose. Treatment vs. Punishment: Poll Finds Americans Prefer Rehab Over Jail for
Drug Offenders. Medical Daily. 4 April 2014.
This article summarizes surveys and polls from Americans. It also summarizes bills and
proposals make by various lawmakers. Two-thirds of Americans would like to see
illegal drug offenders enter programs that focus on rehabilitation rather than
incarceration (Lim). This website is centered on surveys and polls.
I will use this article to emphasize how many people think drug treatment programs will
be better than incarceration. It is not a reviewed source, but the author gets their
information from reliable statistics.
Niv, Noosha, Alison Hamilton, and Yih-Ing Hser. "Impact of Court-Mandated Substance Abuse
Treatment on Clinical Decision Making." Journal of Behavioral Health Services &
Research. Vol. 36.4. 2009. pp. 505-516.

The California Proposition 36 offers treatment alternative to incarceration. It was

developed in the year 2000. This law allows (under certain conditions) adults convicted
of nonviolent drug-related offenses to choose community-based drug treatment in lieu of
incarceration or probation without treatment. Offenders on probation or parole who
violate drug-related conditions of probation or parole can also receive treatment (505).
The actual treatment includes involved focus groups, supervision and monitoring, drug
testing, and then discharge. This article shows how the study works and it analyzes the
results.
This source is credible because it is from a research journal. It was also reviewed before
being published. I will use this article as an example in my paper to show how the USA is
changing their ways in treating drug offenders. I will emphasize all of the positive results
from the California treatment program.
O'Callaghan, Frances, Noleen Sonderegger, and Stefanie Klag. "Drug and Crime Cycle:
Evaluating Traditional Methods Versus Diversion Strategies for Drug-Related Offences."
Australian Psychologist. Vol. 39.3. 2004. pp. 188-200.
This article discusses drugs and crime in Australia, and it also critiques traditional ways
of handling drug offenders. While traditional methods of crime prevention are clearly
insufficient and inadequate to reduce and control the complex issue of drug-related crime,
diversion programs represent a promising alternative (197). The article talks about
referral programs which are designed for nonviolent offenders with substance abuse
problems. IN the USA we have drug courts, but it is still different from Australia.

This article is credible because it comes from a reviewed source. I will use it to
emphasize the example of Australia when comparing their dug treatment programs with
those in the USA.
Taxy, Sam, Julie Samuels, and William Adams. Drug Offenders in Federal Prison: Estimates of
Characteristics Based on Linked Data. Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 248648. 2015.
pp. 1-9.