Over the last decade or so, players in the criminal justice system have begun to rethink the ways in which courts handle drug-related crime.’ As a result, courts throughout the country have established treatment-based programs. Perhaps the most popular of these developments have been specialized, drug treatment courts.
Due to their purported promise and reported success, drug treatment court initiatives have received much attention, praise, and funding to encourage their development. While the “movement ‘s towards the treatment court model has gained ever-increasing popularity, the legal community, including the criminal defense bar, has neglected to provide rigorous critique or analysis of it in legal literature. This is somewhat surprising because the new model purportedly makes a fundamental change in the traditional litigation-based process by espousing a nonadversarial, “team work” approach among all of the court’s players-judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney-to move drug-addicted persons to sobriety.
Zealous advocacy is not enough to combat the effects after a criminal sentence is served, and a holistic approach is necessary
In many jurisdictions, once a parent has her rights terminated to one child, the State can use that decision to justify the termination of parental rights to another child. The State can do so regardless of whether the parent is
As big data’s promises of increased efficiency and serendipitous insights spread across a broad range of sectors, they are accompanied by new risks—some intuitive, some unpredictable. That dichotomy is heavily accentuated in the law enforcement context, where blithe application of
Prosecuting women who carry pregnancies to term despite their drug addictions fails to further the states' goal of protecting fetal health, violates the Equal Protection rights of pregnant women, and is bad public policy.