Citation

Hall W. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Criminol. 1997; 30(2): 103-120.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/000486589703000201

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article discusses the ethical justification for, and reviews the American evidence on the effectiveness of, treatment for alcohol and heroin dependence that is provided under legal coercion to offenders whose alcohol and drug dependence has contributed to the commission of the offence with which they have been charged or convicted. The article focuses on legally coerced treatment for drink-driving offenders and heroin-dependent property offenders. It outlines the various arguments that have been made for providing such treatment under legal coercion, namely: the over-representation of alcohol and drug dependent persons in prison populations; the contributory causal role of alcohol and other drug problems in the offences that lead to their imprisonment; the high rates of relapse to drug use and criminal involvement after incarceration; the desirability of keeping injecting heroin users out of prisons as a way of reducing the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis; and the putatively greater cost-effectiveness of treatment compared with incarceration. The ethical objections to legally coerced drug treatment are briefly discussed before the evidence on the effectiveness of legally coerced treatment for alcohol and other drug dependence is reviewed. The evidence, which is primarily from the USA, gives qualified support for some forms of legally coerced drug treatment, provided that these programs are well resourced, carefully implemented, and their performance is monitored to ensure that they provide a humane and effective alternative to imprisonment. Expectations about what these programs can achieve also need to be realistic.

Language: en