Drug Court Model

Over the past two decades, specialized courts have resulted, according to Quinn (2009), in response to, the “problem solving court” movement (As cited in Cole and Getz, 2013). Such courts, Quinn (2009) noted, have come to focus on social concerns such as, addiction, domestic violence, and mental health issues, and have come to asset that such courts have cured addiction, addressed issues of intimate violence, prevented recidivism, reduced costs, and implied that they have even saved lives (As cited in Cole and Getz, 2013). Recently, however, such success stories have been called into question as modern court reformers have claimed that the assertions by the courts are misleading, as alternative experiences within and contrary opinions about
This is clearly a conflict of interest in which the public should be made more aware of. These reasons and the ones listed above are why one should question the motives behind the courts. If citizens were to understand the true disparate goals and incentives underlying these speciality courts, the public perception and support in which they current receive could most definitely be
Quinn (2009) noted that, future attempts to solve this country’s criminal justice issues should perhaps be focused under a proper study in which is monitored over a substantial period of time, without federal financing, and by individuals unassociated with the court reformers and proponents (As cited in Cole and Getz, 2013). Therefore, in accordance with such regulations, future courts should thereby not receive federal funding until the study has been tested, vetted properly, and results are significant.
As specialized courts continue to progress, Quinn (2009) stated that it is important that policymakers consider all voices, agnostics, and critics as they are all working to improve the courts (As cited in Cole and Getz, 2013). The material has clearly indicated that oftentimes policymakers have continued to overlook the issues mentioned above, which is quite problematic. It is crucial that individuals in such positions do not continue to poor economic resources into these courts without future experimentation, as the results have varied over the years. If one truly hopes to avoid repeating history and mistakes, our decisions must be fueled by more informed, balanced, and thoughtful discourse than what we are currently