Vinyard 1

Sarah Vinyard
ENC 2135
Professor Doran
3 November 2016
Drug Offenders: Incarceration or Treatment?
It is obvious that the United States prison system has many faults. One of the faults in
dire need of change is the group of policies that involve non-violent drug offenses. Too many of
our prisoners are non-violent offenders. I believe that instead of having mandatory minimum
sentencing for drug offenses, we should send the offenders to treatment. We should also provide
more treatment for drug abuse. Handling drug offenders in this way will reduce the amount of
people in jail and reduce recidivism among previous offenders. This will, in turn, lower the
amount of money that government needs to expend on housing and caring for prisoners.
Treatment programs are already being more heavily relied upon in many other countries, and
they are successful. Moreover, the statistics prove that treatment programs are more beneficial
than incarceration, not only for the individual, but for the country as a whole. In the United
States, we do have programs like this in some places, but not in many. For example, some
counties in California have tested these programs out, and their results are promising. The United
States needs to take away mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent drug offenses and start
more treatment programs in order to have less people in jail, and to help those getting out of jail
to live a crime-free lifestyle.
The United States currently has an overcrowding problem in prisons. Not only is this an
issue for the prisoners, it is an issue for the country as a whole. Jelani Jefferson Exum mentions

Vinyard 2
in his article Sentencing, Drugs, and Prisons: A Lesson from Ohio that current data shows that
more than 1 in 100 adults in America- over 22 million people- are incarcerated, earning the
United States the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world (Exum 881).
This number may come as a surprise to many people, however it more importantly proves that
the incarceration rate in the Unites States is a serious problem. The United States prisons are so
overcrowded that some prisons dont even have enough beds for each inmate. Mattresses may be
placed on the floor which is considered satisfactory for a prisoners cell under U.S. law. Even
more surprising is the sheer volume of drug offenders in U.S. prisons. Drug offenders make up
an inordinate percentage of the total number of incarcerated people in in the United States. In
Drug Offenders in Federal Prison: Estimates of Characteristics Based on Linked Data by Sam
Taxy, Julie Samuels, and William Adams, the authors state that at fiscal yearend 2012, offenders
whose most serious offense (as defined by the BOP) was a drug offense accounted for about half
(52%) of the federally sentenced prison population (Taxy 2). If the United States started doing
treatment for these 52% of prisoners, then there would be more resources and more beds for
criminals who commit more serious, as well as more victim-oriented, crimes.
In addition, the money to fund prisons comes from tax-payer money. Exums article also
mentions that in fiscal year 2009, states spent a total of $52.3 billion on corrections, including
building and operating prisons (Exum 881). Moreover, these numbers have increased in recent
years because the prison population is continuing to grow. The question that many law-makers
get faced with is how to fix these issues. I believe that the first step is to stop mandatory
minimum sentencing for drug offenders. The article What are Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Laws from attorneys.com explains how mandatory minimums work. It also clarifies drug
possession cases are the most common ones to involve mandatory minimum sentences. The

Vinyard 3
attorneys.com article provides the example of getting caught with one gram of LSD or 100
grams of heroin means you will spend at least five years in prison (What are Mandatory
Minimum). By removing the mandatory minimums, the United States will see a decrease in
prison populations because many offenders are victims of this mandatory minimum. Sadly, this is
often for very low level crimes such as possessing a small amount of illegal drugs.
If we wish to reduce the number of drug offenders in our prisons, as well as the number
of drug crimes being committed, the United States also needs to improve their way of
approaching the drug offender. Drug offenders are certainly not always dangerous. For example,
many drug offenders get incarcerated for non-violent crimes such as possession. These people
should be treated, not imprisoned. Drug treatment programs would be an effective way of
helping drug offenders. Punitively throwing the offender into prison where they will be
surrounded by all types of hardened criminals is not likely to fix the personal defect or defects
that resulted in an offenders addiction or other drug related offense. It is much more logical that
we should actually help the offender overcome their drug habits by addressing the actual causes
and conditions that led to them. Doing this will help them not to commit their crimes again, and
this is the end result desired by everyone.
Some people may not believe that this will work, but there is a great deal of evidence that
they do work. This is evidenced by the results seen in other countries that employ these drug
treatment programs. In Australia, for example, a new drug treatment program was created to help
eligible drug offenders. They used an abstinence-based treatment program which provided the
offenders with a great deal of support. An article by Astrid Birgden from the Thomas Jefferson
Law Review concluded that re-offending rates were reduced by drug treatment in the
community [by] 12.4% (Birgden 373). The fact that the re-offending rate went down proves that

Vinyard 4
the program helped the drug offenders because they chose not to commit the crimes again;
improving their own lives as well as decreasing the prison population. This is just one of many
ways that the Australian drug treatment programs were beneficial to everyone. Frances
OCallaghan further explains the benefits of these programs in Australia in his article, Drug and
Crime Cycle: Evaluating Traditional Methods Versus Diversion Strategies for Drug-Related
Offenses. He states that while traditional methods of crime prevention are clearly insufficient
and inadequate to reduce control the complex issue of drug-related crime, diversion programs
represent a promising alternative (OCallaghan 197). This analysis of the drug treatment
programs in Australia is one way of showing how beneficial these programs are. I believe the
United States should learn from other countries and develop more drug treatment programs such
as these to reduce drug crimes as well as the financial expense and social costs of incarcerated
these human beings.
The US currently actually has some treatment available for some drug offenders, but
nowhere near enough to make any significant progress in the country. There are drug treatment
courts present in some areas like Baltimore, Maryland. An article called How Drug Treatment
Courts Work written by Denise C. Gottfredson, Brook W. Kearly, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos
M. Rocha explains the drug treatment courts in Baltimore. The drug treatment court includes
frequent drug and alcohol testing, frequent status hearings with judges, and intensive drug
treatment (Gottfredson 4). The offenders get the chance to improve themselves in this situation
instead of merely sitting in a cinderblock rectangle for a period of time. The article explains that
drug treatment is designed in part to increase an offenders personal beliefs that he or she is
capable of living drug-free and crime-free life and to help the offender maintain motivation to
remain drug free (Gottfredson 9). This view on drug offenders is a view that more people

Vinyard 5
should have. It focuses on recovery and strengthening humanity rather than caging people up
who do bad things.
Another treatment program in California, Proposition 36, has shown success in putting
offenders through drug treatment. The article, Impact of Californias Proposition 36 on the Drug
Treatment System: Treatment Capacity and Displacement by Yih-Ing Hser, Cheryl Teruya,
Alison H. Brown and David Huang describes this program. Proposition 36 is not completely in
effect everywhere, but the results from the first few years of the experiment shows huge
potential. The program was open to eligible adults convicted of nonviolent drug possession
offenses to choose community-based drug treatment in lieu of incarceration (Hser 104). The
article discusses that they could have used more funding and staff in order to have optimal
success. By incorporating this idea into a larger scale, the expansion goals of the people involved
with Proposition 36 could become possible. In Impact of Court-Mandated Substance Abuse
Treatment on Clinical Decision Making by Noosha Niv, Alison Hamiltion and Yih-Ing Hser, the
results of Proposition 36 are even further analyzed. This article concluded that the program is
successful. This is especially true because it seems like many people want treatment. For
example, admissions increased by 11% to 34% during the first year in four of the five counties
studied (Niv 506). Thus, this idea has a lot of potential to do great things for our nations
communities.
Simply noting how many people get treatment or how many want treatment is not
enough. We need to analyze how effective the treatment was. Currently, recidivism is a problem
for people who get out of jail. Recidivism refers to those who relapse into their old ways and end
up back in jail. Recidivism is a problem in the United States because of many factors. The main
factor is that prisons do not treat the inmates or prepare them for life after prison. Recidivism

Vinyard 6
Among Drug Offenders Following Exposure to Treatment by John Hepburn proves in numbers
and statistics that drug treatment programs work. The article, referring to Californias Proposition
36, states that 52% of those drug users who did not enter the treatment program were rearrested
during the follow-up period, compared to 43% of those who entered but failed to complete the
program (Hepburn 245). This means that the numbers decreased with only little exposure to
treatment. He goes on to say that only 22% of those who entered and completed the drug
treatment program were rearrested during the follow-up period (Hepburn 245). In sum, the rate
of recidivism was reduced by more than half after exposure to treatment. This goes to show that
incorporating drug treatment programs around the United States could have a magnificent impact
on society. If half of the drug offenders let out of jail stay out of jail, there would be a large
decrease in prison population.
Perhaps this proposition could cause fear in some people, especially those working in,
and for, prisons. For example, a prison guard may worry about losing his job if prison
populations decrease. With many major changes in the United States, fear about job security is a
natural negative reaction, and a common reaction amongst the working citizens of this country.
But even this fear, it can be argued, could be alleviated by the results of reducing drug crime
incarcerations. If the number of prisons is reduced and require less funding by the government,
only people employed directly by prisons would possibly lose their jobs. However, by adding
treatment programs to the process of dealing with drug offenders, new jobs would be created
which could likely be offered to many of these government employees. Treatment programs offer
a myriad of jobs such as administrators, record keepers/clerks, drug test administers, and drug
counselors. These are positive alternatives to prison guards because instead of watching
prisoners, these employees can go much further in their duties to help prisoners live better lives.

Vinyard 7
Thus, the even prison employees should not fear these programs because they will ultimately end
up with greater opportunities to serve other people in the new paradigm. Also, any tax payers
who might worry about the money spent on drug treatment programs should consider the fact
that the money spent on prisons will decrease considerably more than the costs spent on drug
treatment programs. Despite these possible detractors, it is a fact that the amount of people who
currently advocate for drug treatment programs outweighs the number of people who do not
want them. The article Treatment vs. Punishment: Poll Finds Americans Prefer Rehab Over Jail
for Drug Offenders by Jillian Rose Lim states that two-thirds of Americans would like to see
illegal drug offenders enter programs that focus on rehabilitation rather than incarceration
(Lim). This poll shows that drug treatment programs are possible because many people are in
favor of them.
In conclusion, if anyone agrees that drug treatment programs will be much more
beneficial than the way the United States handles nonviolent drug offenders now, then they
should do something about it. Starting at the local government level is the likely best method to
promote these programs. This is how the people in California approached their program, and this
is the first step in getting these programs to grow nationwide. I encourage anyone who feels
strongly about this topic to go out and influence others. Based on the polls, there will be a
majority of people that agree with this viewpoint. Furthermore, everyone should make an effort
to get the attention of their local lawmakers on this issue, or vote for lawmakers who support this
issue. Again, it starts at the local government, and then we can progress towards making this a
federal government issue. Hopefully the United States can follow the example of other countries
by helping the drug offender rather than incarcerating them. This will create a better system for
those people as well as each and every member of society.

Vinyard 8
Works Cited
Birgden, Astrid. "A Compulsory Drug Treatment Program for Offenders in Australia:
Therapeutic Jurisprudence Implications." Thomas Jefferson Law Review. Vol 30, No. 367,
2008, pp. 367-390.
Exum, Jelani Jefferson. "Sentencing, Drugs, and Prisons: A Lesson from Ohio." University of
Toledo Law Review. Vol. 42, 2011, pp. 881-889.
Gottfredson, Denise C., Brook W. Kearly, Stacy S. Najaka, Carlos M. Rocha. How Drug
Treatment Courts Work. Journal of Drug Issues. Sage Publications, Vol. 44, No. 1,
2007, pp. 3-35.
Hepburn, John R. Recidivism Among Drug Offenders Following Exposure to Treatment.
Criminal Justice Policy Review. Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 237-259.
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, No. 1, 2007, pp. 104-109.
Lim, Jillian Rose. Treatment vs. Punishment: Poll Finds Americans Prefer Rehab Over Jail for
Drug Offenders. Medical Daily. 4 April 2014.
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, No. 4, 2009, pp. 505-516.

Vinyard 9
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, No. 3, 2004, pp. 188-200.
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.
What Are Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws. Legal Articles Criminal Defense.
http://www.attorneys.com/criminal-defense/what-are-mandatory-minimum-sentencinglaws