Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report is designed in order to explores the problems and limits of current legal responding trends on drug-abusing offender, and to suggest the recommendations to change into good practices to improve the best treatment possible from the criminal justice system. Research conducted during the past decades has demonstrated a need to enhance treatment for drug-abusing offenders at all stages of the criminal justice process. By providing therapeutic intervention, criminal justice agencies have a unique opportunity to identify and rehabilitate drug-abusing offenders who are likely, if untreated, to return to a personally and socially destructive pattern of use and criminal activity following release from prison. While the demand for treatment services within the criminal justice system continues to far exceed the supply, with the gap actually getting wider over the past decade, it is unlikely that the demand for treatment can ever be met fully within criminal justice setting. Therefore, since it is neither possible nor necessary to provide services to every drug-abusing offender, referral decisions must be made regarding whether an offender's drug-related problem are serious enough to warrant treatment. Furthermore, when serious problems are identified, referral decisions must also be made regarding the most appropriate type and intensity of treatment. An objective screening and referral protocol, on the other hand, can serve to provide a consistent means of identifying abuse offenders most likely to benefit from limited treatment resources. From this point of view, the main purpose of this research aims to design the referral protocols and screening tools available to interventions within the criminal justice system, in order to identify legal eligibility and preliminary general suitability for entry into the treatment program This paper consists of four sections. The first describes the state-of-the-art and the limits in the current criminal justice system to treat drug-abusing offenders, and discusses what should be done and changed to improve the effective responding in offender recidivism and to enhance therapeutic interventions within the criminal justice procedures. The second explores the comparative analysis of three offender groups treated by different types of correctional setting through the self-reported questionnaire. The third provides a comprehensive overview of most recent drug courts developed in the several western jurisdictions(particularly, in the United States and Canada but also in the United Kingdom and Australia) that supports the therapeutic interventions(or treatments) as a effective means to reduce illegal use and recidivism among drug-abusing offenders. The final section enumerates the principles of effective for treatment, demonstrate the screening tools devised from the findings of three-groups investigations on recidivism, and suggest therapeutic interventions and policies work best for different types of offender, particularly those that specialize in treating drug-dependent offender.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,017 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».