Bibliographic record
Abstract
`Drug treatment courts' (DTCs) are a new institution in North American criminal justice for dealing with drug offenders. There are currently two DTC pilot trials in implementation in Canada. Based on a `therapeutic jurisprudence' approach, DTCs claim to rehabilitate rather than punish drug-addicted offenders, and thus to reduce drug use, recidivism and social cost. Given the current enthusiasm about DTCs, this article provides a critique of DTCs' rationale, practices and implications from evaluative, social and legal perspectives. It focuses on the Canadian experience where possible. The analysis examines: the limitations of the evidence and methods behind the claims of DTCs' effectiveness; the ontological and practical challenges of the proposed `bridging' of punishment and treatment; the legal and penological implications of `therapeutic jurisprudence' practices; as well as potential explanations for DTCs' rise in popularity despite the limited evidence for their positive impact. The article concludes with reflections on the implications of DTCs for the government of drug use as deviance in contemporary social contexts, as well as for political efforts towards less punitive drug control. DTCs may reinforce the hegemony of punitive drug use control—partly by coopting treatment strategies—and thus fundamentally protect the legitimacy of prohibition politics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".