Further Readings
Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L.
(1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a
safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84,940–951.
Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral
research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Russano, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera,
M. B. (2006). Why don’t you take another look at number
three: Investigator knowledge and its effects on eyewitness
confidence and identification decisions. Cardozo Public
Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4,355–379.
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (2003).
Eyewitness evidence: A trainer’s manual for law
enforcement(NCJ 188678). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M.,
& Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness
identification procedures: Recommendations for
lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior,
22,603–647.DRUGCOURTS
Drug courts are therapeutically oriented courts that
attempt to reduce drug-related crime through a mixture
of treatment and judicial oversight. Dade County,
Florida, established the first drug court in 1989. By mid-
2006, there were 1,563 drug courts in the United States,
including 411 juvenile drug courts. Single- and multisite
studies of drug courts, as well as meta-analyses, suggest
that drug courts are more effective than traditional crim-
inal courts in reducing recidivism, though this finding
does not apply to all drug courts, nor does it apply to all
defendants who appear before drug courts.
In the 1980s, the federal government and many
states enacted stricter drug laws, which increased the
number of defendants charged with drug-related
offenses. In addition, it is estimated that between one
fourth and one half of adult arrestees and one half of
female arrestees are at risk of drug dependence. Drug
courts were set up as a vehicle for diverting at least
some of these defendants to treatment on the assump-
tion that successful treatment would reduce the risk of
future offending. The emergence of drug courts, and
their rapid growth, was also stimulated by significant
funding by the federal government, as well as other
types of local and state funding.Drug courts do not adhere to a single, rigid model.
For example, they may differ on target populations,
the types of treatment that are available, and program
completion and retention rates. Despite these differ-
ences, most of them share several defining character-
istics. First, they focus on providing early assessment
and diversion to treatment. Some courts do this prior
to adjudication of the charge, while others require the
person to plead to the charge as a condition for receiv-
ing treatment rather than criminal sanctions. Second,
drug courts monitor the person’s adherence to treat-
ment and other conditions established by the court,
through regular oversight by probation and treatment
staff and through status hearings conducted at regular
intervals by the court. As part of monitoring, the
defendant is subjected to frequent drug testing. Third,
drug courts use a mix of incentives and sanctions in an
effort to shape behavior. Incentives may include gift
certificates, praise of the defendant’s efforts in public
judicial hearings, and graduation ceremonies on
successful completion of the treatment program.
Punishment for infractions, such as a failed drug test
or a missed court date, often relies on graduated sanc-
tions, including incarceration. Fourth, if the person
successfully completes the treatment program, the
charge may be dropped (in jurisdictions that use a pre-
plea model) or expunged from the person’s record (in
jurisdictions using a postplea model).
There are other differences between drug courts and
traditional criminal courts. The creation of a drug court
in a jurisdiction affects the way in which criminal
cases are assigned to various judges. In the absence of
a drug court, there is usually little effort to assign drug-
related cases to a particular judge; rather, these cases
are assigned for disposition in the same way that other
criminal cases are assigned. In contrast, drug courts are
specialty courts, and one of the characteristics of spe-
cialty courts is that cases involving defendants eligible
for the court are typically consolidated before one
judge. Drug courts are also therapeutically oriented,
which has an impact on the role of the judge and attor-
neys. The adversarial process is at the heart of the tra-
ditional criminal court. However, in a drug court (as
with other therapeutically oriented courts) the adver-
sarial process is de-emphasized, on the ground that it
may be an obstacle to a therapeutic outcome. Instead,
the judge, the defense attorney, and the prosecuting
attorney are supposed to be united in working for the
outcome that best enhances the defendant’s therapeu-
tic prospects while not placing public safety at risk.244 ———Drug CourtsD-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 244