NCJ Number
217997
Journal
Criminal Justice Policy Review Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Dated: March 2007 Pages: 3-30
Date Published
March 2007
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This study examined how the passage of Arizona’s mandatory drug treatment law affected probation violations and the revocation process.
Abstract
Study findings show that the implementation of mandatory drug treatment laws has the capacity to alter the decisions made by probation officers, prosecutors, and judges in low-level drug cases. The findings support the argument that probation officers and not prosecutors play the most significant role in revocation decisions. Findings indicate that the majority of revocations leading to incarceration involved technical violations and not the commission of new crimes. Mandatory drug treatment laws represent the latest policy aimed at dealing with the increasing representation of drug offenders in prison. Although a number of States have enacted sentencing laws that mandate drug treatment for low-level drug offenders, few studies have extended an empirical focus to such laws. To expand studies of sentencing policies to include mandatory drug treatment laws and provide a more comprehensive review of the relationship that exists among probation officer, prosecutors, and judges in revocation cases, this study explored four research questions: (1) what types of technical violations led to probation revocation and imprisonment of low-level drug offenders; (2) what was the relationship between technical violations and prosecutors’ decisionmaking process; (3) what was the relationship between technical violations and judicial outcomes; and (4) did probation officers’, prosecutors’, and judges’ decisionmaking processes change after the implementation of the mandatory drug treatment law? The study analyzed only those low-level drug offenders who were on probation prior to incarceration under the Arizona Department of Corrections. Tables, notes, and references