Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

The judge plays a dual role; on the one hand, the judge

seeks to create a relationship with the defendant that

increases the likelihood that the defendant will comply

with treatment, while on the other, the judge retains the

authority to punish the individual for behavior that

deviates from the dispositional plan. Drug courts, like

other therapeutically oriented courts, also are likely to

spend more time on an individual case and emphasize

the opportunity for the defendant to participate in the

design of the treatment plan and other conditions that

the defendant will be required to meet.

There have been many studies of drug courts,

including single-site, multisite, and meta-analyses.

While many of these studies reportedly rely on differ-

ent methods and/or have methodological flaws (e.g.,

few are random-assignment studies) and comparison

across studies is difficult because of the lack of unifor-

mity in what is being measured, the most recent meta-

analysis concluded that drug courts are more effective

than traditional criminal courts in reducing recidivism

and in enabling defendants to reduce substance use. It

has been suggested that a number of factors may influ-

ence the effectiveness of a specific drug court, includ-

ing the characteristics of the offenders eligible for the

drug court program, the characteristics of the drug

court program itself, the available treatment services,

and community contextual issues. Studies to date do

not provide conclusive evidence on the effect of any of

these discrete variables, though research suggests that

drug courts relying on a single treatment provider and

drug courts using a single preplea or postplea model

(rather than a mixed model) achieved better outcomes.

Drug courts and therapeutic courts are not without

controversy. Some commentators question whether

a therapeutic orientation dilutes defendant rights.

Others debate whether the use of coercion is effective

and ethical in mandating treatment compliance.

Despite these continuing debates, the number of drug

courts continues to grow, and at this point, they have

become part of the judicial mainstream.

John Petrila

See alsoMental Health Courts; Procedural Justice; Substance

Abuse Treatment; Substance Use Disorders; Therapeutic

Jurisprudence

Further Readings

Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Justice and treatment innovation:

The drug court movement(National Institute of Justice

Update, NCJRS Document Reproduction Service No.

NCJ 149 260). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts:

Overview of growth, characteristics, and results.

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (2005). Adult drug courts:

Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed

results for other outcomes. Washington, DC: Author.

Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2006). A

systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.

Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2,459–487.

“DYNAMITE CHARGE”

In a majority of U.S. courts, particularly criminal

courts, jury verdicts are required to be unanimous.

Occasionally, however, juries are unable to reach a

consensus. In such instances, judges will sometimes

prompt juries to reach a decision by issuing an

instruction that is often referred to as the “dynamite

charge.” The dynamite charge stresses the importance

of reaching a unanimous verdict and puts particular

pressure on jurors who hold the minority opinion to

reconsider their position. Researchers have begun to

explore the effects of this controversial instruction.

During jury deliberations, jurors are expected to

engage in a process of social influence. Ideally, juries

are supposed to come to a unanimous decision by

engaging in reasoned discussion designed to convince

one another that a particular decision is the correct

one. By the end of the deliberations, if a unanimous

verdict is reached, each juror should privately believe

that the jury verdict is in fact the correct verdict. This

type of influence, in which a person adopts a position

because he or she has been convinced that it is truly

the correct position, has been termed informational

social influence.Another type of influence,normative

social influence, may also play a role in jury decision

making. Normative social influence occurs when a

juror outwardly agrees with the jury verdict (i.e., he or

she goes along with the majority’s position) but pri-

vately disagrees with the decision. The juror only

acquiesces due to perceived or real pressure to go

along with the group decision. This, ideally, should

notoccur during jury deliberation.

If a jury deadlocks (i.e., members are unable to

reach a consensus), the jury is considered to be

“Dynamite Charge”——— 245

D-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 245