In 1989, the first drug-treatment court was established in Florida, inaugurating an era of state-supervised rehabilitation. Such courts have frequently been seen as a humane alternative to incarceration and the war on drugs. Enforcing Freedom offers an ethnographic account of drug courts and mandatory treatment centers as a system of coercion, demonstrating how the state uses notions of rehabilitation as a means of social regulation. Situating drug courts in a long line of state projects of race and class control, Kerwin Kaye details the ways in which the violence of the state is framed as beneficial for those subjected to it. He explores how courts decide whether to release or incarcerate participants using nominally colorblind criteria that draw on racialized imagery. Rehabilitation is defined as preparation for low-wage labor and the destruction of community ties with “bad influences,” a process that turns participants against one another. At the same time, Kaye points toward the complex ways in which participants negotiate state control in relation to other forms of constraint in their lives, sometimes embracing the state’s salutary violence as a means of countering their impoverishment. Simultaneously sensitive to ethnographic detail and theoretical implications, Enforcing Freedom offers a critical perspective on the punitive side of criminal-justice reform and points toward alternative paths forward.

A natural companion to the recently published Drug Control and the Courts (SAGE 1996), this accessible volume focuses on five case studies in judicial innovation - the dedicated drug treatment courts in Miami, Oakland, Fort Lauderdale, Portland and Phoenix. Each case is presented in a chapter written by a local expert to describe and evaluate five prime examples of dedicated drug treatment courts. These chapters are written to a common outline and each discuss the following points: community demographics; structural organization of the court; court caseloads, including drug cases; successes and failures of initial goals and objectives and subsequent adaptations; and measures of long-term successes and failures.

Is drug addiction a disease that can be treated, or is it a crime that should be punished? In her probing study, Illness or Deviance?, Jennifer Murphy investigates the various perspectives on addiction, and how society has myriad ways of handling it—incarcerating some drug users while putting others in treatment. Illness or Deviance? highlights the confusion and contradictions about labeling addiction. Murphy’s fieldwork in a drug court and an outpatient drug treatment facility yields fascinating insights, such as how courts and treatment centers both enforce the “disease” label of addiction, yet their management tactics overlap treatment with “therapeutic punishment.” The “addict" label is a result not just of using drugs, but also of being a part of the drug lifestyle, by selling drugs. In addition, Murphy observes that drug courts and treatment facilities benefit economically from their cooperation, creating a very powerful institutional arrangement. Murphy contextualizes her findings within theories of medical sociology as well as criminology to identify the policy implications of a medicalized view of addiction.

The findings reported in this book are based upon ethnographic observations of drug courts throughout the United States and provide a glimpse into the unique character of the American drug court model, considering the qualities and consequences of this form of criminal adjudication.

The number of people incarcerated in the U.S. now exceeds 2.3 million, due in part to the increasing criminalization of drug use: over 25% of people incarcerated in jails and prisons are there for drug offenses. Judging Addicts examines this increased criminalization of drugs and the medicalization of addiction in the U.S. by focusing on drug courts, where defendants are sent to drug treatment instead of prison. Rebecca Tiger explores how advocates of these courts make their case for what they call “enlightened coercion,” detailing how they use medical theories of addiction to justify increased criminal justice oversight of defendants who, through this process, are defined as both “sick” and “bad.” Tiger shows how these courts fuse punitive and therapeutic approaches to drug use in the name of a “progressive” and “enlightened” approach to addiction. She critiques the medicalization of drug users, showing how the disease designation can complement, rather than contradict, punitive approaches, demonstrating that these courts are neither unprecedented nor unique, and that they contain great potential to expand punitive control over drug users. Tiger argues that the medicalization of addiction has done little to stem the punishment of drug users because of a key conceptual overlap in the medical and punitive approaches—that habitual drug use is a problem that needs to be fixed through sobriety. Judging Addicts presses policymakers to implement humane responses to persistent substance use that remove its control entirely from the criminal justice system and ultimately explores the nature of crime and punishment in the U.S. today.

Drug courts - a rare success story in the criminal justice system - are generally credited with reducing recidivism and providing a lower-cost alternative to incarceration. They have also spawned the development of other specialty courts. The authors of Drug Courts and the Criminal Justice System provide a comprehensive analysis of just how drug courts work, systematically examining the model and exploring its broader significance.

In the more than 30 years since the drug court model transformed the criminal justice landscape, problem-solving courts have expanded their reach beyond criminogenic needs. They now address demographic similarities (e.g., veterans courts, tribal wellness courts, community courts) and offense characteristics (e.g., prostitution courts, sex offender courts). The rapid expansion of problem-solving courts to meet many different individuals suggests this template is appropriate and adaptable to just about any categorical characteristic. This book calls on problem-solving court experts to offer a fresh perspective on the evolving discourse on these courts' proliferation. Contributors describe diverse applications of the problem-solving court model while critically appraising these niche courts' evidence. This book provides a comprehensive account to date of how problem-solving courts are continuing to revolutionize justice. This collective body of work strengthens our understanding of their placement in the throes of a call for meaningful criminal justice reform.Taking Problem-Solving Courts to Scale is presented in three sections to address specialty courts focused on criminogenic needs, individual characteristics, and offense characteristics. At the outset of each section, the editors describe the courts' purpose falling under these broad categories and highlight key elements from the chapters falling within.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.